Londonvann, justering av bryggevann til porter og imperial brown stout

[Alien]

There is far too much speculation on these matters. Often what seem to be myths being propagated, not just on home brew forums (as is common) but in formal publications too. 'Chinese whispers' with random prescriptions abound. For example, "Adding more than x mg/L salt y is not recommended". Even though there is little to no data for undesirable flavour thresholds. Even though no consideration is given to how much of y salt (its ions) is precipitated out during the brewing process therefore doesn't end up in the final product.

Porters and stouts originated in London. The water used for brewing came from deep bore holes beneath London clays surrounded by limestone (chalk). This water, which contains very high Mg++, Na+, Cl- and SO4-- levels, produced 'full, sweet stouts' (Hind 1938). It's interesting that NaCl is generally described as adding sweetness, rather than saltiness, to dark ales.

Dublin is interesting. The geology is predominantly limestone (chalk), but Arthur Guinness apparently sourced his 'soft' brewing water from the Wicklow Mountains. Whether it was modified on route (by the limestone) I don't know. He employed London porter Brewers. They might have had some understanding of water and possibly its treatment. All I know is that untreated soft water doesn't produce an acceptable porter/stout.

My conclusion to date, the brewery's water source, or its treatment, is the key.

 

[Finn Berger]

@Alien
I think maybe threshold data circulating mostly originate with Martin Brungard, both from his "Water Knowledge" page, and through Palmers use of his data in How to Brew. I can't find the basis for them. Perhaps as the use of RO water is so widespread in the US, the need to build up the water from scratch has generated some sort of consensus? Competition brewing would stimulate this, wouldn't it, as people get feedback from the judges on faults originating from the use of salts?

As for London water: Read Martin Brungards post in this thread. Does that seem right to you?

 

[Miguel]

They ARE the basis of much information spread in the homebrewers community. At some point the backtracking of information has to stop, when you hit the source for it. So it's often just one source.

 

[Finn Berger]

They ARE the basis of much information spread in the homebrewers community. At some point the backtracking of information has to stop, when you hit the source for it. So it's often just one source.

Går over til norsk.

Det som er litt kjedelig er at jeg ikke kan finne ut noe om hvordan/hvor/når Brungard (eller andre) kom fram til disse terskelverdiene.

Men Brungard er jo en av dem jeg gjerne stoler på.

 

[Miguel]

Går over til norsk.

Det som er litt kjedelig er at jeg ikke kan finne ut noe om hvordan/hvor/når Brungard (eller andre) kom fram til disse terskelverdiene.

Men Brungard er jo en av dem jeg gjerne stoler på.

Ja, mbrungard er en autoritet på området, vannområdet. Men det som er litt fønny er at han ofte får en del imot av ajdelange, som muligens er en enda større autoritet på samme område. For meg så virker det nesten som om ajdelange er «ute» etter mbrungard

 

[Finn Berger]

Ja, mbrungard er en autoritet på området, vannområdet. Men det som er litt fønny er at han ofte får en del imot av ajdelange, som muligens er en enda større autoritet på samme område. For meg så virker det nesten som om ajdelange er «ute» etter mbrungard

Interessant. Skulle gjerne visst hva uenigheten går på.

Jeg har ikke bekymra meg så veldig om dette temaet, egentlig , så jeg har ikke lest meg opp noe særlig. Jeg kikker gjerne litt på hva standardrådene angående balansen mellom sulfat og klorid er, ser på notatene fra tidligere brygg, og så passer jeg på pH'en. Men jeg ser at det kanskje kan være noe å hente på å utvide perspektivet litt.

 

[Alien]

@Alien
I think maybe threshold data circulating mostly originate with Martin Brungard, both from his "Water Knowledge" page, and through Palmers use of his data in How to Brew. I can't find the basis for them. Perhaps as the use of RO water is so widespread in the US, the need to build up the water from scratch has generated some sort of consensus? Competition brewing would stimulate this, wouldn't it, as people get feedback from the judges on faults originating from the use of salts?

As for London water: Read Martin Brungards post in this thread. Does that seem right to you?

I think you have touched the view held by some experienced British home brewers, Finn. Don't take advice from Americans about brewing English ales. It's not often Americans don't take things to the extreme, but water treatment, in terms of mineral 'thresholds', might be something they are more reserved about. It works for their beers. American beers tend to be 'cleaner', ignoring some of the most recent hop bombs. English ales have more character in the 'subtle' zone. It has to be explored with the senses. It doesn't jump out to overwhelm, like an American hop bomb can. Yeast strains make up much of the difference, but water and its treatment could be seen as making a difference too. The 'thresholds' differ, I guess, as a matter of taste and style. For competition judges, following American guidelines for style, there would need to be an appreciation English ales actually aren't necessarily brewed how Americans brew them. The risk here is a well-brewed authentic English ale gets scored low due to bias. If considering brewing an American ale, I'll take American advice on water treatment.

I'm not sure why anyone would want to present a water profile for the London Thames. Despite a number of traditional London breweries being sited next to it, water from the Thames wasn't used for brewing liquor. It was used for shipping in ingredients and shipping out ale. London being a major historical metropolis, over populated and buzzing with activity, the London Thames is filthy. Historically, it was even worse! Absolutely no use for brewing. It's more likely that periodic natural flooding of the Thames floodplain was responsible for high Na+ and Cl- in water beneath London. Alternative water sources were channelled in at some point. Whether this was to meet increasing demand or the brewery wells becoming contaminated by industrial activity I don't know. The latter is certainly a possibility. Water sources eventually became managed by water companies, which helped breweries meet increasing demands and freed them from the responsibility of managing their own water supplies. Nowadays, London mains are used with water treatment. Ground water sources, being naturally filtered and containing more dissolved mineral salts beneficial to brewing, would have been generally preferred over city rivers; and rivers generally perhaps?

 

[FrodeSy]

I think you have touched the view held by some experienced British home brewers, Finn. Don't take advice from Americans about brewing English ales. It's not often Americans don't take things to the extreme, but water treatment, in terms of mineral 'thresholds', might be something they are more reserved about. It works for their beers. American beers tend to be 'cleaner', ignoring some of the most recent hop bombs. English ales have more character in the 'subtle' zone. It has to be explored with the senses. It doesn't jump out to overwhelm, like an American hop bomb can. Yeast strains make up much of the difference, but water and its treatment could be seen as making a difference too. The 'thresholds' differ, I guess, as a matter of taste and style. For competition judges, following American guidelines for style, there would need to be an appreciation English ales actually aren't necessarily brewed how Americans brew them. The risk here is a well-brewed authentic English ale gets scored low due to bias. If considering brewing an American ale, I'll take American advice on water treatment.

I'm not sure why anyone would want to present a water profile for the London Thames. Despite a number of traditional London breweries being sited next to it, water from the Thames wasn't used for brewing liquor. It was used for shipping in ingredients and shipping out ale. London being a major historical metropolis, over populated and buzzing with activity, the London Thames is filthy. Historically, it was even worse! Absolutely no use for brewing. It's more likely that periodic natural flooding of the Thames floodplain was responsible for high Na+ and Cl- in water beneath London. Alternative water sources were channelled in at some point. Whether this was to meet increasing demand or the brewery wells becoming contaminated by industrial activity I don't know. The latter is certainly a possibility. Water sources eventually became managed by water companies, which helped breweries meet increasing demands and freed them from the responsibility of managing their own water supplies. Nowadays, London mains are used with water treatment. Ground water sources, being naturally filtered and containing more dissolved mineral salts beneficial to brewing, would have been generally preferred over city rivers; and rivers generally perhaps?

I guess Gahr S-G table of watertreatment is based on J. Palmer / Brungard and americanised versjon of brewing, so I'l probably go with your recommendations. As I'm very fond of english beers which also dominates my brewing schedule, can I please ask which source / calculator you use when deciding your own water treatment? Yes, I know I'm simplifying this, but I'm all for as simple sollution as possible for me since science don't get my rocks off...

 

[Alien]

They ARE the basis of much information spread in the homebrewers community. At some point the backtracking of information has to stop, when you hit the source for it. So it's often just one source.

The problem is there are not really any meaningful studies that have been designed to test this, in terms of brewing. Blogs don't satisfy me. Hence unsubstantiated views being propagated and passed on as is. To date, it seems to have more to do with egos than data. So I ignore it all and test things empirically myself to satisfy my own taste. However, since applying 'complicated' water treatment to my dark ales, those who drink it have decided actually they do like dark English ales after all. Proof enough for me

 

[Alien]

I guess Gahr S-G table of watertreatment is based on J. Palmer / Brungard and americanised versjon of brewing, so I'l probably go with your recommendations. As I'm very fond of english beers which also dominates my brewing schedule, can I please ask which source / calculator you use when deciding your own water treatment? Yes, I know I'm simplifying this, but I'm all for as simple sollution as possible for me since science don't get my rocks off...

The late Graham Wheeler produced a very 'simple' (user friendly) calculator recommended by many. I recommend it too.

http://www.jimsbeerkit.co.uk/water.html

It's simple enough to get started without any confusion. Graham was above ego. Generous with his acquired knowledge, a true gent. Just add all what it recommends with the grains at mash-in. Then if you want to tweak things, experiment and tweak them. Note, though, water treatment alone is redundant without considering the most important factor in brewing: pitching sufficient healthy yeast cells. They make the ale If you want to try some proper English ale yeast, you can send me a PM.

 

[Finn Berger]

@Alien
Brungard is a rather infuential American "guru", and as an engineer he has been doing actual research on both London and Dublin water. So I think maybe American brewers are a little more enlightened than you seem to think. I don't think youread his post that I linked to above, so I'll paste it here, and you can judge:

I wouldn't use the London profile in Bru'n Water to brew a Porter. It is more representative of water from the Thames.

I'll add a bit more history to water resources in London since I performed an extensive research project on the subject. Please be aware that this discussion is on the location of old London since that is where the brewers were in the centuries prior.

An important facet of London water is that it did not all come from the Thames. Functionally, there were essentially three sources: R. Thames, R. Lee, and the chalk aquifer under the city. The river waters were fairly similar with around 100 ppm calcium, low magnesium, low sodium, modest chloride and sulfate, 200 to 300 ppm bicarbonate. Contrast those river waters with the groundwater from the chalk aquifer in which the calcium and magnesium were under 15 ppm, but the sodium was fairly high at nearly 200 ppm and chloride was a little over 100 ppm. The bicarbonate content was in the mid 200 ppm range.

The low calcium and magnesium, high sodium, and fairly high bicarbonate content made the groundwater well-suited for dark beers. With the low Ca and Mg content, that water had a fairly high residual alkalinity (RA). All or most of the London Porter breweries drew their water from the aquifer. The river waters with their higher calcium content and similar or slightly lower bicarbonate content had much lower RA and it was predominately used to brew pale beers.

The elevated sodium content of the groundwater actually melds fairly nicely with the dark malts in Porter. While I've brewed London Porter with 110 ppm Na and 190 ppm Cl, I have to admit that it is a bit much for me. I now recommend reducing those levels to more modest levels of about 60 percent of those original levels. The calcium levels should be brought to around 50 ppm to get the yeast to floc out well. Bring the bicarbonate level high enough to bring the mashing pH into the 5.4 to 5.6 range and brew it.

Because of saltwater intrusion from all the industrial groundwater use in the London region, I understand that the UK Environmental Agency has been banning the use of groundwater from the Chalk aquifer. That use had undoubtedly increased the sodium and chloride levels in that water over the years. The records I used to assess the Chalk aquifer water quality were presented in a book from 1913 and I seem to recall that the well records dated to around 1870. As we know, London Porter breweries and the industries in London predate that by at least a 100 years, so its possible that saltwater intrusion had taken its toll on the groundwater back then. Therefore, I do feel that my recommendation to moderate that sodium and chloride level in your brewing water is valid.

Those of you that are American Homebrewers Association members can review the article on London water that was published in Zymurgy in May/June 2014.

As for the probably most infuential American writer on brewing, John Palmer, here is a short article he wrote based on Brugard's work: http://allaboutbeer.com/article/water-and-beer/

For all I know you may be right about American tastes. I really wouldn't know. But at least good information seems to be easily available to Americans.

I realize you're not satisfied with "blogs". But do you think these short texts give good information, or are they in any way misleading?

Palmer is, together with Colin Kaminski, author of the book "Water. A Comprehensive Guide for Brewers." Brungard was technical editor on that book. If you've read it, what do you think of it?

And by the way; another very infuential figure on the American scene is an englishman, Charlie Bamforth, staunch supporter of Wolves and a man who has worked with, among others, Bass. I guess he knows a thing or two about English beer?

 

[Alien]

Yes, I read the links you provided, Finn. Did you read my comments? You might find they make a lot more sense, if you were able to think independently and join up some dots. You seem a lot more convinced by opinions than me. I’ve got time for Charlie Bamforth, because he’s had time for home brewers, but I’m not sure what dropping him in here adds to your apparent resistance against ‘complicated’ water treatment. Charlie isn’t an expert in brewing water. I’m not aware of any advice he recommends for brewing dark London ales. I’m sure he would frown on blindly ‘juggling’ treatment of soft water, regardless. I do these days. The English know how to make a dark London ale, Finn. And they’ve had relevant water data since the early 20th century - long before 2013. Consider the seminal work published by H Lloyd Hind, in the 1930s. I recommend reading the water sections.

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000859729

Now, I’m sure you’ll be tempted to retort with opinions on the opinions of others. Adopting and propagating myths requires no effort. It represents a kind of belief system that I don’t support. (A trait often expressed by the Norwegian, I’ve actually noticed.) I don’t need to believe my brewing practices are the best I can do. It’s more fun to confront and challenge what isn’t understood, especially when it results in clear improvements to my beers. I don’t give a shit what people think. I give a shit about what evidence they have to support what they think, especially if it’s being prescribed. I care about what works better. I understand this is alien to some, who can’t provide any data. In my view, that’s no excuse for being so stubborn. It exposes a fundamental failure in problem solving, an inability to think independently, a resistance to trying something unfamiliar, and invites being misled, at best. If that suits you, fine. It’s your prerogative to maintain your own ignorance. That’s your responsibility, not mine. However, it seems somewhat antagonistic of you to deny what has clearly worked for others, basing your argument on popular publications. Neither Palmer nor Brungard offer anything not already known by English brewers. Nor do they offer any new data to persuade brewers to follow a particular practice that might deviate from what has been prescribed by genuine experts, based on data and centuries of empirical evidence.

To conclude, you are of the opinion that the English don’t know how to make a dark London ale? An American engineer knows better, because he’s personally sensitive to mineral thresholds? Really? The English know exactly how to brew quality dark London ales. With help from a professional water chemist, my own empirical evidence supports this. I offer my experience on ‘complicated’ water treatment here so that those interested in making better dark London ales can do so. Take it or leave, but don’t deny it. You risk presenting yourself as a fool.

 

[Finn Berger]

Yes, I read the links you provided, Finn. Did you read my comments? You might find they make a lot more sense, if you were able to think independently and join up some dots. You seem a lot more convinced by opinions than me. I’ve got time for Charlie Bamforth, because he’s had time for home brewers, but I’m not sure what dropping him in here adds to your apparent resistance against ‘complicated’ water treatment. Charlie isn’t an expert in brewing water. I’m not aware of any advice he recommends for brewing dark London ales. I’m sure he would frown on blindly ‘juggling’ treatment of soft water, regardless. I do these days. The English know how to make a dark London ale, Finn. And they’ve had relevant water data since the early 20th century - long before 2013. Consider the seminal work published by H Lloyd Hind, in the 1930s. I recommend reading the water sections.

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000859729

Now, I’m sure you’ll be tempted to retort with opinions on the opinions of others. Adopting and propagating myths requires no effort. It represents a kind of belief system that I don’t support. (A trait often expressed by the Norwegian, I’ve actually noticed.) I don’t need to believe my brewing practices are the best I can do. It’s more fun to confront and challenge what isn’t understood, especially when it results in clear improvements to my beers. I don’t give a shit what people think. I give a shit about what evidence they have to support what they think, especially if it’s being prescribed. I care about what works better. I understand this is alien to some, who can’t provide any data. In my view, that’s no excuse for being so stubborn. It exposes a fundamental failure in problem solving, an inability to think independently, a resistance to trying something unfamiliar, and invites being misled, at best. If that suits you, fine. It’s your prerogative to maintain your own ignorance. That’s your responsibility, not mine. However, it seems somewhat antagonistic of you to deny what has clearly worked for others, basing your argument on popular publications. Neither Palmer nor Brungard offer anything not already known by English brewers. Nor do they offer any new data to persuade brewers to follow a particular practice that might deviate from what has been prescribed by genuine experts, based on data and centuries of empirical evidence.

To conclude, you are of the opinion that the English don’t know how to make a dark London ale? An American engineer knows better, because he’s personally sensitive to mineral thresholds? Really? The English know exactly how to brew quality dark London ales. With help from a professional water chemist, my own empirical evidence supports this. I offer my experience on ‘complicated’ water treatment here so that those interested in making better dark London ales can do so. Take it or leave, but don’t deny it. You risk presenting yourself as a fool.

This is hopeless, and I'm not going to waste any more time on it. I'm not holding any of the opinions you're claiming I do hold, and I don't know how you've been able to interpret me in that way.

 

[bjartenataas]

You might find they make a lot more sense, if you were able to think independently and join up some dots. You seem a lot more convinced by opinions than me.

The English know how to make a dark London ale, Finn.

Adopting and propagating myths requires no effort. It represents a kind of belief system that I don’t support. (A trait often expressed by the Norwegian, I’ve actually noticed.)

I don’t give a shit what people think.

It exposes a fundamental failure in problem solving, an inability to think independently, a resistance to trying something unfamiliar, and invites being misled, at best. If that suits you, fine. It’s your prerogative to maintain your own ignorance.

To conclude, you are of the opinion that the English don’t know how to make a dark London ale? An American engineer knows better, because he’s personally sensitive to mineral thresholds? Really?

I offer my experience on ‘complicated’ water treatment here so that those interested in making better dark London ales can do so. Take it or leave, but don’t deny it. You risk presenting yourself as a fool.

Do you mind if I try to give some constructive criticism?

 

[Steinar Huneide]

Noen med litt kort lunte i dag?

 

[FrodeSy]

@FrodeSy Jeg brygga en stout i dag, og endte opp med å gjøre alt det jeg har sagt du ikke skal gjøre - tror jeg.

Her er notatene mine: "Brukte 3/4 ts klorid og 1/4 ts sulfat i mesken + 1 ts kalsiumkarbonat. pH i mesken lå hele tida relativt lavt, rundt 5,3. Til kok fikk jeg da for lav pH (5,1x), og justerte opp med et par ts kalsiumkarbonat. Da havnet den på 5,4, og jeg kunne sette til 3/4 ts sulfat. Satte ølet til gjæring med ned mot 5,2. Resultatet er at jeg har godt med kalsium i ølet, og omtrent 3:2 sulfat/klorid. Det er også ganske mye karbonat, og det er noe nytt. Er veldig spent på hvordan dette blir."

Og det er jeg, ja.

Då nærmer det seg brygging... spent på dette.

Du skriv at eg kan bruke (f.eks.) 1 ts kalsiumkarbonat dersom Ph hamnar for lavt. I innlegg #13 skreiv du at eg kan bruke natron. Gahr bruker begge deler. Kva er rett?

Du tipser også i at eg kan fordele alle tilsettingar med halvparten i mesk og halvparten i kok sidan (kanskje) opp til 40 % forsvinn i mesk. Gahr bruker tilsette kalsiumsulfat og kalsiumklorid i kok. Eg tipper eg kan gjere det slik.

 

[Finn Berger]

Då nærmer det seg brygging... spent på dette.

Du skriv at eg kan bruke (f.eks.) 1 ts kalsiumkarbonat dersom Ph hamnar for lavt. I innlegg #13 skreiv du at eg kan bruke natron. Gahr bruker begge deler. Kva er rett?

Begge deler kan brukes. Men jeg ville begynt med natron, og bare brukt kalsiumkarbonat hvis det blir nødvendig. Kalsiumkarbonat reagerer langsommere, og det er litt usikkert hvor effektivt det er. Så jeg ser vel på det litt som en nødløsning.

 

[FrodeSy]

I går målte eg for første gong pH i mesk, ein foreign extra stout. Eg brukte kalkulatoren på Jim's Beer Kit som Alien linka til. Ut frå anbefalingane fekk eg ein pH på 5,15 før kok. Eg veit ikkje om det var kalsiumkarbonatet som ikkje var oppløyst, men eg måtte til med natron. Tenkte ikkje på å måle pH fleire gongar. Men det fekk meg til å tenke på om det fins tommelfingerreglar for kor pH skal ligge etter mesk og etter gjæring.
Bryggeskjema er uansett no justert, så dette skal eg tenke på neste gong.

Eg tenkte eg måtte få pH opp mot 5,4, så slengte i 2 ts med natron og enda opp på ei måling på 6,0! Ok, visste ikkje kva eg skulle gjere, så eg ga blaffen og fortsatte utan å foreta meg noko i høve å få den ned. (Skulle rekke to brygg samtidig med at logistikken med ungane til og frå div. aktivitetar ikkje kunne nedprioriterast.) Ut frå denne artikkelen til The Drunken Alchymist skulle eg ikkje gjort det, men lite å gjere med no. Satser på at ølet blir godt nok uansett.

 

[Finn Berger]

I går målte eg for første gong pH i mesk, ein foreign extra stout. Eg brukte kalkulatoren på Jim's Beer Kit som Alien linka til. Ut frå anbefalingane fekk eg ein pH på 5,15 før kok. Eg veit ikkje om det var kalsiumkarbonatet som ikkje var oppløyst, men eg måtte til med natron. Tenkte ikkje på å måle pH fleire gongar. Men det fekk meg til å tenke på om det fins tommelfingerreglar for kor pH skal ligge etter mesk og etter gjæring.
Bryggeskjema er uansett no justert, så dette skal eg tenke på neste gong.

Eg tenkte eg måtte få pH opp mot 5,4, så slengte i 2 ts med natron og enda opp på ei måling på 6,0! Ok, visste ikkje kva eg skulle gjere, så eg ga blaffen og fortsatte utan å foreta meg noko i høve å få den ned. (Skulle rekke to brygg samtidig med at logistikken med ungane til og frå div. aktivitetar ikkje kunne nedprioriterast.) Ut frå denne artikkelen til The Drunken Alchymist skulle eg ikkje gjort det, men lite å gjere med no. Satser på at ølet blir godt nok uansett.

Det der var jo synd for deg - men det kan være ganske interessant for oss. Du må fortelle hvordan det går.

Natron hender det jeg må ty til, også, når det brygges mørke øl. Skal jeg ha litt sulfat og klorid, så havner jeg fort for lavt, og da er det opp med natronkrukka. Men det skal ikke så mye til, og den effekten du fikk, er hva jeg ville forventet.

Jeg synes jeg ofte opplever at pH i mesk ikke synker så mye som forventet, dvs. 0,2. Så jeg sliter litt med å få pH etter kok dit jeg vil. Den siste ble liggende oppe på 5,2X, mens jeg ville hatt den ned mot 5,1. Det var en lys bitter, men det kjennes ikke så galt ut nå som det er så godt som ferdig utgjæret.

 

[FrodeSy]

Det er jo heilt topp om folk kan lære av mine erfaringar (så skal prøve huske oppdatere), men eg er jo litt ego, så litt må eg få lære sjølv også...

Ut frå den kalkulatoren eg brukte, skal ein alltid bruke både sulfat og klorid på både porter og stout medan Gahrs vannjusteringstabell seier at ein ikkje skal bruke det på desse ølstilane. Som nemnt har eg aldri målt pH før sjølv om eg har justert vatnet etter Gahrs tabell. Så det bør prøvast slik at eg kan behalde natron til bruk i sveler. Uansett så er det tydelegvis forsvinnande lite mengde som skal brukast, så då må eg nok prøve begge deler. Denne testen bør skje i same vørter / øl.