Starting out on water treatment

[barry44]

Go for the pale ale profile. I was told to go for that and I made a lovely beer. Whether the water profile helped, I'll never know, but it is lovely.

[Dave S]

Go for the pale ale profile. I was told to go for that and I made a lovely beer. Whether the water profile helped, I'll never know, but it is lovely.

I always adjust to the Pale Ale profile for pales and bitters too. I've assumed that the Yellow profiles would be more suited to lagers, which I don't brew.

[Full Mental Jakey]

I'll try that next time. I did consider it, but the sulphates seemed a bit extreme, and I couldn't see the sense in adding carbonates to brew a pale beer. So I chose the "yellow bitter" profile as it seemed reasonably balanced, and it did the two things I wanted from the experiment - 1. see if the added calcium improves mash/kettle performance and improves yeast health, and 2. see if a high sulfate/chloride ratio accentuates the hops.

Both FVs are fermenting away nicely, so for now the yeast in both are happy...

[Full Mental Jakey]

Update. Just taken a gravity reading. From an OG of 1052, the untreated brew is down to 1020, and the treated brew to 1015. So looks like that extra calcium may be helping...

[orlando]

I didn't see any mention of alkalinity from the report, or did I miss it? It is certainly the most important figure. The sulphate chloride ratio you picked works for me,so should be a good beer if you got a good recipe and yeast.

[Full Mental Jakey]

Correct, the report is lacking any indication of alkalinity (which I find surprising). I emailed Scottish water asking for the figure, but no reply. However, I measured it myself with a Salifert kit at 20ppm, so that is the figure I'm using.

[AdyG]

Hi

I've just done exactly the same Carbonate Hardness/Alkalinity & Calcium test to fill in the gaps in the water report, I've put the figures into Grahams Water Treatment on Calculators on here. I used the Alkalinity result off the test which was 3.19 meq/l = 159.5ppm so that went in that box, but took Hardness off the water report to put in the other box, which was CaCo3 219 mg/l

Here's a screenshot:


I'm going for a hoppy APA and just wanted to double check that looks right, I know the water is hard in our area but wanted to get a more accurate measure of it.

What do you reckon? 14g of gypsum in mash, 8g calcium chloride in mash and 4g of Epsom in the boil sound realistic based on the figures?

Cheers.

[Dave S]

Are you brewing 23l batches? 14g gypsum seems a bit on the high side. I prefer Bru 'n Water as Graham's calculator doesn't take into account the effect of the grain on mash pH

[Aleman]

Are you brewing 23l batches?

Volume to be treated is 35L

[Dave S]

Are you brewing 23l batches?

Volume to be treated is 35L

Really must get my eye sight re-tested

[AdyG]

Are you brewing 23l batches? 14g gypsum seems a bit on the high side. I prefer Bru 'n Water as Graham's calculator doesn't take into account the effect of the grain on mash pH

Yeah I'm doing it as a BIAB style so start with 35l in the boiler. I was going to treat all the water first, but really I suppose you should add some to the pre mash then check acidity as you go along. Perhaps I need a digi ph meter...

I will check out the Bru 'n Water as another method of checking the water. I assume the additions for 35l of hard water I posted don't look to ridiculous then... I didn't want to ruin a whole batch by putting too much of something in

[Full Mental Jakey]

A wee update on this experiment...

1. As reported earlier, there was no difference in mash/kettle performance that I could measure. Volume, OG, efficiency was identical.

2. I reported that the fermentations had started to diverge, with the treated brew edging ahead. This trend continued, with the treated brew finishing 4 gravity points lower than the other (1007 vs 1011). I almost never have a brew go under 1010, and 1007 is certainly the lowest I've seen. So this is quite a noticeable change - nice to have a concrete result! Furthermore, the treated brew reached FG 3-4 days ahead of the other. Ok, this is just 1 experiment, but if this result is consistent, then from a process point of view, water treatment is totally justified in my view. Or, at least, with my soft calcium-deficient water it is...

3. Once bottled, the treated brew bottle-conditioned quicker than the other. I assume this is just an extension of the happy yeast observed in 2.

4. Taste? Well, they are both tasty pale ales in the US style. Either could qualify as the best pale ale I've brewed, but that doesn't say much, as it's not a style I brew a lot. If you had them a day apart, you probably wouldn't pick a difference. But having them side-by-side, I think the treated version is better. I wouldn't say the hop flavor/aroma is stronger in the treated version, but it is 'finer'. Better integrated. More harmonious. Smoother. I expected to detect a 'dryness' difference, given the differing FGs, but I don't.

I'll be tasting the bottles over the next few weeks to see if any other difference develop, but for me, with my water, the result is pretty clear - treating the water helps. Primarily from a process perspective, and to a lesser degree from a flavour perspective. I've come to appreciate that brewing great beer doesn't have to be hard or complex, but this is very likely a step towards brewing superlative beer.

[AdyG]

It's interesting that you say it has a better integrated smoother more harmonious taste, as I was hoping accurate water treatment would provide that to my beer. It's just going to make everything come together that little bit better. When tasting something like a Kernel IPA it has that quality.

I'm glad it worked for you and cheers for the information on this thread, helped me progress my water treatment too. I have tried accurate treatment using the calculator as my post above, everything went well and it's conditioning in the bottles at the moment.... should be ready for a sample in a couple of weeks. Quite excited about this one, first brew in 2-3 months.