[CounterPressure]

LOL, thats amazing.

Yea, it's a small town in rural PA.  Water supply is filtered and all the lines in the town were replaced years back with all new.  I even built some of the robots they used for sealing the joints with the UV cure epoxy that goes at every seam.  Pretty cool.  They've won nationwide awards for the water quality. I wish I had such at home but I live in an even smaller municipality (if that's possible, lol).  Here, I'm actually very close to the source water, but before any filtration plant used for the city, and I don't even know if there is such a thing there. I live on a no outlet road and the reservoir is just up the road a bit, at the end of it. I've never had the water tested here. It's nice, but if I don't keep the water softener maintained, there's stains in the toilets and sinks, so it's pretty hard.  At least compared to work.   

I'll try to put an image here taken from the report.  And yes, that 9 sulfate was already multiplied by 3, lol.
http://www.1g1yy.com/1g1yy/temp/WardWater.jpg

I tried to post an image but life is too short to complete that... I don't pay for a security certificate... It won't even make a placeholder for an image now. tried ftp, that doesn't work either...


Ok, a hyperlink to an image works... wow...

[dmtaylor]

[dmtaylor]

Shoot, it doesn't seem to work with your source.  I'm not sure why.  I like Flickr.

[CounterPressure]

Shoot, it doesn't seem to work with your source.  I'm not sure why.  I like Flickr.

Yea, I've tried 3 ways to ___ and back and it just doesn't work without an httpS protocol.  Ideally, the forum would just allow an upload where the server verified it's an image and then the forum hosting hosts the image. That way, no matter what happens elsewhere on the internet, the image lives on.  As it is with your flicker acct, if you close that, all the images you've ever posted here disappear.  Which is why I advocate for any forum host to simply turn on the image/attachment uploads and host the ir own data. It's literally the only thing this forum lacks. Open any forum here and click on the last pages (earliest historical posts) and you'll be hard pressed to find ANY image that is still hosted, even on the recommended image host, tapatalk I think it is.  (I've never used it).   
But I digress...


PS.  Clicking that button doesn't always even bring up the URL dialog box, and simply puts the IMG tags in the text editor where you have to formulate the entire markup manually.  Then after numerous tries, all of the sudden it did ask for the URL and I was able to enter it.  Weeks ago it also added an image placeholder where it had tags for width= and height=, but last night I could not get those to appear either.  I tried to allow an ftp link, but I think my ftp has no anonymous access, so that wouldn't work either... Most times I just don't bother trying to add images because it's so difficult.  Then too it's a challenge, ya get fighting with it and waste loads of time. lol.

[BrewBama]

I read Brewing Better Beer years ago and it liberated me from obsessing over grams scales, spreadsheets, and mineral salt additions.  While it may be true that loading a beer with acids and salts may make the beer taste authentic, I’ve found the less I futz with it the better it tastes to me. I prefer ‘better’ vs ‘authentic’ taste.  So, I don’t add a lot of salts.

The concept is simple: 1) use a consistent chlorine free water source. I prefer low mineral content. 2) focus on mash pH. Ensure there is at least 50 ppm calcium in the mash to aid in enzyme function. Withhold anything that can screw with pH until after conversion. 3) season to taste in the kettle using sodium, chloride, and/or sulfate. I rarely add additional salts.

As far as the critique I hear of withholding dark malts that screw with pH until after the mash has converted starch to sugar: I have found my validation. I entered an American Porter to the NHC 1st round at KC that scored a 42. I used Kurt Stock’s tried and true recipe as presented by Matthew Herrold at 2023 NHC and only changed the recipe by using the concepts above. I brewed a less robust version doing the same thing entering it as an English Porter in another competition and scored a 41. I knew these were both good beers and getting that anonymous feedback confirmed it for me: this works for me and anonymous judges.


One day, you’ll wake up and there won’t be anymore time to do the things you’ve always wanted to do. Don’t wait. Do it now.

[Megary]

I read Brewing Better Beer years ago and it liberated me from obsessing over grams scales, spreadsheets, and mineral salt additions.  While it may be true that loading a beer with acids and salts may make the beer taste authentic, I’ve found the less I futz with it the better it tastes to me. I prefer ‘better’ vs ‘authentic’ taste.  So, I don’t add a lot of salts.

The concept is simple: 1) use a consistent chlorine free water source. I prefer low mineral content. 2) focus on mash pH. Ensure there is at least 50 ppm calcium in the mash to aid in enzyme function. Withhold anything that can screw with pH until after conversion. 3) season to taste in the kettle using sodium, chloride, and/or sulfate. I rarely add additional salts.

As far as the critique I hear of withholding dark malts that screw with pH until after the mash has converted starch to sugar: I have found my validation. I entered an American Porter to the NHC 1st round at KC that scored a 42. I used Kurt Stock’s tried and true recipe as presented by Matthew Herrold at 2023 NHC and only changed the recipe by using the concepts above. I brewed a less robust version doing the same thing entering it as an English Porter in another competition and scored a 41. I knew these were both good beers and getting that anonymous feedback confirmed it for me: this works for me and anonymous judges.


One day, you’ll wake up and there won’t be anymore time to do the things you’ve always wanted to do. Don’t wait. Do it now.

We all have to do what works best for our brewhouse, for the beer and for our enjoyment of the hobby.  Not necessarily in that order.  I'm glad you found a water process that bangs out excellent beers consistently.  Those scores are high praise indeed.

I'm quite happy making what I (and others) feel are very good beers simply by using my house well water and adding those grains that are beneficial for pH adjustment directly to the mash.  No filtration and upkeep, no RO, no trips to the store etc.  If I have to add a bit of lactic acid when I make a Cream Ale or yellow lager, so be it.

And I completely agree about measurements.  I add salts by fractions of a teaspoon, however rounded.  Good enough.

Maybe my beers actually suck and I'm fooling myself...and people are just being polite.  Could be.  But I'm enjoying the hobby.

Cheers.

[CounterPressure]

I have no doubt there may be a point of diminishing returns, but all the same, I sort of enjoy working through the process.  Yes, it can be frustrating, but imo that's just part of it. 

I listened to the 2 Beersmith podcasts where they had Marshall Schott from Brulosophy on, and after 160 experiments, the one thing they found more telling than any other aspect of beer making, was the water chemistry.  According to him, far and away the most significant factor they've found.  Virtually everything else had circumstances where the test panel was all but unable to detect the odd samples, but with water chemistry changes, the results were obvious.  And this was counter to his original preconceptions that as long as the water wasn't "Bad", it would work.  That was shown profoundly not true.

The other thing he said was noticeable was plastic fermenters vs glass.  And it so happens that I did a batch 2 weeks ago in one glass and one plastic fermenter.  There's zero doubt, I can tell the difference, and it's not even close.  Not a matter of bad vs good, just VERY different. Which is quite educational to me. I'd never taken note of that before.  I did another batch in just a plastic fermenter (for the first time) and that's easily the best batch of that beer (4 batches) I've made yet. It's always been done either in glass or stainless before. Pretty fascinating.  He mentioned that he ferments exclusively in PET fermenters, but did his odd test batch in a carboy he was given years ago.  The tasters could tell the difference.

https://beersmith.com/blog/2016/08/25/brulosophy-brewing-experiments-with-marshall-schott-beersmith-podcast-132/

https://beersmith.com/blog/2017/11/09/brulosophy-brewing-experiments-with-marshall-schott-beersmith-podcast-159/

[Drewch]

Re: water chemistry

I mean, it makes sense when you think about it.

You can make good beer without adjusting water minerals, but it's luck of the draw what styles will work well with your water. I've lived in 5 states and traveled to quite a few more, and there's no doubt in my mind I could pick out Oklahoma water vs. lower Alabama (or NoAla, Florida, etc, etc) water in a triangle test.

It's like cooking without salt. Salt is (usually) a tiny fraction of a percentage by mass of any recipe, but no one is surprised when it makes a big difference in the final dish.

[ScallyWag]

You should use higher sulfate in hoppy beers, not necessarily more Ca.  I often use MgSO4 to get the sulfate without the Ca.

That leads me to a question about sulfate (but first some context): 

In the 4-5 years I've been homebrewing, I have not [yet] done anything at all with water chemistry.  I live in the north suburbs of Atlanta, near the Lake Lanier dam & water treatment facilities, and our water is reputedly quite good. 

The first few years I ran all my water through a carbon filter, but then I tried just straight tap water and I couldn't tell the difference.  Beer was still good.

Then I started adding half a campden tablet to the tap water just in case (5gal batches), and while my recent beers have been slightly better, I'm not sure if that's the campden-ated water or just my improved process/ability & recipes/ingredients.

For a hoppy beer, if I were to add a full campden tablet to my brew water (instead of my usual half tablet), I would have water with more sulfates, with little else changed, if I understand correctly.  Is there any downside at those levels?  1 tablet per 7gallons is higher than needed for the chloramines, but still much lower than what winemakers and cidermakers use.

I may have to test that out on a hop-focused pale ale, if there's no danger to it...

[denny]

You should use higher sulfate in hoppy beers, not necessarily more Ca.  I often use MgSO4 to get the sulfate without the Ca.

That leads me to a question about sulfate (but first some context): 

In the 4-5 years I've been homebrewing, I have not [yet] done anything at all with water chemistry.  I live in the north suburbs of Atlanta, near the Lake Lanier dam & water treatment facilities, and our water is reputedly quite good. 

The first few years I ran all my water through a carbon filter, but then I tried just straight tap water and I couldn't tell the difference.  Beer was still good.

Then I started adding half a campden tablet to the tap water just in case (5gal batches), and while my recent beers have been slightly better, I'm not sure if that's the campden-ated water or just my improved process/ability & recipes/ingredients.

For a hoppy beer, if I were to add a full campden tablet to my brew water (instead of my usual half tablet), I would have water with more sulfates, with little else changed, if I understand correctly.  Is there any downside at those levels?  1 tablet per 7gallons is higher than needed for the chloramines, but still much lower than what winemakers and cidermakers use.

I may have to test that out on a hop-focused pale ale, if there's no danger to it...

Hampden is sulfate, not sulfate. Different stuff, different effects.

[Cliffs]

I have seen a trend with folks trying to make every single box green in Bru'n water or other water software programs and it results in them doing really weird and overly complicated things to their water. Since my tap water is a blend from various sourves that changes constantly I use RO and take a very simple approach:

hoppy/dry finishing beers, Sulfates adjusted with gypsum to about 150ppm and then use an acid or base to get my ph in range

all other beers, equal parts gypsum and chlorides to get my calcium to around 30ppm and use acid or base to get my ph in range.

I ignore everything else and this aproach has made me the best beer. 

[dmtaylor]

Hampden is sulfate, not sulfate. Different stuff, different effects.

*Campden is sulfite, not sulfate.  FTFY 

[BrewBama]

I have seen a trend with folks trying to make every single box green in Bru'n water or other water software programs and it results in them doing really weird and overly complicated things to their water. Since my tap water is a blend from various sourves that changes constantly I use RO and take a very simple approach:

hoppy/dry finishing beers, Sulfates adjusted with gypsum to about 150ppm and then use an acid or base to get my ph in range

all other beers, equal parts gypsum and chlorides to get my calcium to around 30ppm and use acid or base to get my ph in range.

I ignore everything else and this aproach has made me the best beer.

Bingo


One day, you’ll wake up and there won’t be anymore time to do the things you’ve always wanted to do. Don’t wait. Do it now.

[ScallyWag]

Hampden is sulfate, not sulfate. Different stuff, different effects.

*Campden is sulfite, not sulfate.  FTFY 

LOL, thanks Dave, I was supremely puzzled by the original explanation.

That said, I recall reading a post by Martin many years ago (2016) explaining that the metabisulfite from the campden converts to sulfate, adding a few ppm of sulfate to your water.  That's where I was going with that... unless Martin mistyped sulfate/sulfite in that chloramine-related thread.

[CounterPressure]

LOL, thanks Dave, I was supremely puzzled by the original explanation.

That said, I recall reading a post by Martin many years ago (2016) explaining that the metabisulfite from the campden converts to sulfate, adding a few ppm of sulfate to your water.  That's where I was going with that... unless Martin mistyped sulfate/sulfite in that chloramine-related thread.

I do not think he did. His spreadsheet clearly quantifies the amount of Sulfate contributed by SM additions.  For that to be incorrect means that he and every other person who's ever used that, to include peer review, over 6 years time didn't notice that was wrong. Highly unlikely.