Author: Marshall Schott
The first beer I ever made was an Irish Red Ale kit that came with a small baggie of a fine white powdery substance. Reading the instructions, I learned it was called “gypsum” and that I was supposed to add it to the boiling wort, that it would improve the flavor of the resultant beer. In the many subsequent extract and steeping grain batches I made, I forgot this mineral addition and never really noticed a difference (as if I was paying much attention). Following my transition to all grain brewing, water chemistry was the last thing on my mind, rather my focus was on fermentation temperature control and yeast health. Rightfully so! I’m hardly alone in thinking these 2 process components have contributed more than most anything, just short of proper cleaning and sanitation procedures, to the betterment of my end product. I made a couple fantastic beers, a few decent batches, and some total flops. As I learned the language of my system and honed my technique, I began to wonder what might be left for me to tweak to improve the quality of my beers, what small things I could change that would have a noticeable impact and maybe even bump my comp scores up a bit. I’d already started buying ingredients in bulk, vacuum sealing hops, and building a library of viable yeast. The only thing left was fussing with my water.
Not interested!
There was just something about this aspect of brewing that was so unappealing to me. While I’d played with adding gypsum and calcium chloride to my brewing liquor or boiling wort, I was hugely intimidated by the world of brewing water, what with its calculations and scientific jargon. Apparently, I wasn’t alone. According to a recent survey of over 2,000 homebrewers, a whopping 54.6% reported they use only unfiltered tap water to make their beer. I can totally relate, I ignored my brewing water for years and still produced the best beer on Earth according to my family and friends (“you gotta open your own brewery dude, you just gotta!”). But as I progressed in the obsession, I was influenced by those discussing the topic on popular podcasts, blogs, and magazines. My feelings of intimidation began to wane and I decided to wander down the path of alkalinity, mash pH, minerals, and acids… oh my.
A few years back, I downloaded Martin Brungard’s 
awesome (and free) Bru’n Water Spreadsheet, read all the great information that comes with it, and have been using it since. While I feel I’ve got a fairly adequate practical understanding of the impact certain minerals and acids have on beer, I expect to glean much more from the relatively new book, Water: A Comprehensive Guide For Brewers, authored by a couple great authorities on the subject, John Palmer and Colin Kaminski. After listening to these guys discuss brewing water in the many interviews they’ve participated in, it’s easy to trust they know what the hell they’re talking about.
After making this change, I accepted that my beers improved on faith, as I’d never compared similar beers brewed with waters of differing mineral composition. I didn’t notice any huge changes in my brewing efficiency, hop utilization, or beer clarity, as I expected, but I still believed my beers got better. The time had finally come to test whether my perceptions were right or if I was merely fooling myself, victim to the plethora of biases we unwittingly engage in to justify our decisions and beliefs.
| PURPOSE |
Evaluate the differences between 2 beers of the same recipe mashed with either mineralized and acidified water or filtered but otherwise untreated water.
| METHOD |
Based on responses to a survey I recently sent out, I chose to brew a German Pils for this xBmt, the style preferred by 54% of respondents.
German Pils
| Batch Size | Boil Time | IBU | SRM | OG | Est. FG | ABV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.5 gal | 90 min | 36 | 4 | 1.047 SG | 1.009 SG | 5.0% |
Fermentables
| Name | Amount | % |
|---|---|---|
| Franco-Belges Belgian Pils Malt | 8 lbs | 86.5 |
| Gambrinus Vienna Malt | 1 lbs | 10.8 |
| Melanoiden Malt | 4 oz | 2.7 |
Hops
| Name | Amt/IBU | Time | Use | Form | Alpha % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perle | ~25 IBU | 60 min | Boil | Pellet | 8.6 |
| Tettnang | 14 g/3.1 IBU | 15 min | Boil | Pellet | 5.8 |
| Perle | 11 g/3.7 IBU | 15 min | Boil | Pellet | 8.6 |
| Tettnang | 30 g/4.2 IBU | 5 min | Boil | Pellet | 5.8 |
Yeast
| Name | Lab | Attenuation | Ferm Temp |
|---|---|---|---|
| Saflager W-34/70 | Fermentis | 70% | 50°F |
Given the fact manipulation of the variable in this xBmt would occur prior to the boil, it required the performance of separate mashes using the same ingredients and brewing methods. The grains were carefully measured out and milled the night prior to brewing, then I collected the full volume of water for each batch. I chose to use the no sparge method for these beers because I thought it most prudent to treat the entire volume of brewing liquor for the manipulated batch. In order to emphasize any differences water treatment might have on the finished beer, I used the Bru’n Water spreadsheet in conjunction with BeerSmith to determine the adjustments I would have to make to match a Dortmund profile, known for being rather high in mineral content. The Escobarian mounds of white powder would be enough to make Tony Montana say goodbye to his lil’ friend.
According to Bru’n Water, the differences between the untreated and treated water profiles were pretty drastic:
Untreated Tap Water Profile
| Ca | Mg | Na | SO4 | Cl | HCO3 |
| 4 | 1 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 33 |
Treated Water Profile
| Ca | Mg | Na | SO4 | Cl | HCO3 |
| 145 | 24 | 10 | 302 | 99 | -27 |
The salts and acid were added to one kettle and gently stirred until fully incorporated. The following morning, my rad little assistant helped mash-in, we staggered the start of each batch by about 20 minutes.
The fact I hit the same exact mash temp for both batches was encouraging and provided some confirmation my grain, water, and temperature measurements were good.
The estimated mash pH for the treated and untreated batches were 5.2 and 5.7, respectively, which was pretty close to my measurements at 10 minutes in.
The same exact volume of sweet wort was collected from each batch after a 60 minute saccharification rest and added to separate kettles.
Pre-boil SG measurements at this point indicated a very small difference, with the treated batch clocking in at .001 points lower than the untreated batch, which wasn’t expected. I proceeded to boil and kettle hop each batch, keeping all aspects as close as I’d imagine any sober dude in his garage is capable. Wort volumes at the end of the boil were exactly the same as measured by my trusty $3 hand-notched dipstick.
Just about the only thing I enjoy about the winter months is the fact my groundwater gets cool enough to allow me to chill to ale pitching temps, a luxury of sorts for homebrewers residing in warmer climates.
I took an OG reading at this point and confirmed there was indeed a very slight difference between each batch.
Of course, the difference could be a function of some extraneous variable, though my neurotic attempt to keep things as equal as possible compels me to believe it was related to the variable being tested. Either way, I thought it was an interesting observation. Each labeled carboy was then filled with its respective wort.
After about 4 hours of sitting in my cool ferm chamber, both worts had dropped to my target pitch temp of 50°F, after which the rehydrated yeast was pitched and my Black Box lager fermentation profile was engaged.
The following morning, both beers were showing signs of activity, though there were some observable differences throughout the course of fermentation.
The treated batch began to develop a krausen that was much whiter in appearance than the untreated batch.
After 10 days of fermentation, with the temp of the chamber sitting at 65°F, the krausen on the treated batch had dissipated while the untreated batch maintained a relatively thick cap of brown goo.
It was at this point I took an initial hydrometer reading and discovered both had reached my target FG, the untreated batch attenuating ever so slightly more than the treated beer.
I also found it curious that the treated batch sample was noticeably more hazy than the untreated batch.
While I detected no diacetyl at this time, both beers smelled subtly of sulfur, so I kept them in the chamber a couple more days before confirming FG had indeed been reached. The beers were then cold crashed and fined with gelatin before being packaged.
I let the beers lager and carbonate in my keezer for a week before presenting them to tasters.
| RESULTS |
A huge thanks to Colin Kaminski and his beautifully bearded brewer, Jake Lake, from Downtown Joe’s for participating in this xBmt.
How rad that one of the authors of the quintessential book on brewing water agreed to put his reputation on the line for science. As with all participants, Colin and Jake were both blind to the nature of the xBmt and had no clue it had anything to do with water. I’m sure many are curious how Colin did, if he was capable of detecting the beer brewed with treated water… unfortunately I’m unable to share that info, as doing so would break confidentiality. Rather, let’s allow the results to speak for themselves.
In all, 15 people participated in this xBmt, which would require 8 (p<0.05) correct responses to suggest a statistically significant difference. Each participant was provided 3 samples consisting of 1 beer from the treated batch and 2 from the untreated batch.
A rare occurrence indeed, this xBmt produced significant results with 9 (p=0.014) participants accurately selecting the single treated sample as being different. From this, we can deduce that the participants’ ability to distinguish between the 2 different beers is probably not entirely due to random chance, suggesting it is likely at least partly a function of the variable manipulated– water treatment.
As with every xBmt, those who correctly selected the odd-beer-out completed a second survey comparing only the 2 different beers, still unaware of the nature of the xBmt. While these results have been reported in the past, this is the first time they hold statistical value. Remember, only the 9 participants who were accurate on the triangle test completed this comparative evaluation.
AROMA
Regarding aroma, 7 tasters reported perceiving the different beers as being somewhat similar while the others thought they were not at all similar. When asked which sample they preferred, 6 tasters chose the beer treated with minerals/acid and the other 3 chose the untreated sample. One participant commented that the beer mashed with untreated water had “more malt,” while another taster noted picking up some diacetyl in the untreated sample.
FLAVOR
When it comes to flavor, all 9 tasters noted the different samples as being somewhat similar, with 7 preferring the sample brewed with treated water.
MOUTHFEEL
In terms of mouthfeel, 5 believed they were exactly the same and 4 felt they were somewhat similar. Of those who noted some similarities, preference was split evenly between the 2 beers.
Overall, these tasters preferred the beer brewed with treated water by a 2-to-1 margin. When provided the opportunity to guess what was different about the beers, only 3 participants responded and none were correct. One believed it had something to do with hop flavor and aroma, another felt there were different phenol levels, and the third thought it had something to do with the malt bill. Following revelation of the nature of the xBmt, each taster was asked to guess which beer they thought was brewed using only filtered water with no mineral additions or acidification. The majority (6) wrongly selected the beer brewed with treated water, which is interesting considering this is the same number of tasters who reported preferring the treated sample– perhaps some bias was at play here, who knows?
My Impressions: Count me among those who readily noticed a difference. Despite my obvious bias, I was rather easily able to distinguish the odd-beer-out in multiple blind triangle tests. I perceived the beer treated with minerals and acid as being considerably crisper and lighter on the palate with a pleasantly sharp hop bitterness that balanced the malt character well. The untreated beer was, in my opinion, way more malt-forward and lacking almost fully in that crispness I expect from a German Pils. Was it bad? I don’t think so. Different? Absolutely. It’s interesting that one taster noted diacetyl in the untreated batch, as I actually put both through 2 tests wherein I warmed the beer to encourage the expression of this chemical, neither time produced positive results. That said, my hypothesis is that in comparison to the treated beer, the pronounced bready character from the Belgian Pils malt was perhaps misinterpreted as diacetyl. Hmm.
| DISCUSSION |
Excited as I am that these results are statistically significant, it’s important to remember this is still only a single point of data and that the results arguably only hold water in the precise situation in which the experiment occurred- German Pils, Dortmund water profile, no sparge method, etc. Hence, using this xBmt alone as a basis for making decisions could be erroneous. While there exists a trove of anecdotal reports from folks claiming water manipulation contributed to a noticeable improvement in their beer, the fact is that a huge majority of homebrewers don’t mess with their water at all, many of whom I would imagine are making fantastic beer and perhaps even scoring well in competitions. Still, despite the caveats I mentioned, I personally believe these results are telling and rather exciting. I’ll admit, I’ve been a fence-rider when it comes to water treatment, engaging with many homebrewers in conversations about the subject over the years. This despite the fact I’ve regularly treated my water for the past few years. I guess I just wasn’t convinced the impact would be all that noticeable, at least enough to sway one’s preference. Now, I’m much more convinced.
As mentioned earlier, the method in which the water was treated for this xBmt was one of many, we’ve got a bunch more xBmts planned to test the other approaches as well! Until then, please share your experiences with treating your brewing water, I’d love to know what you think.
Support Brülosophy In Style!
All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!
Follow Brülosophy on:
FACEBOOK | TWITTER | INSTAGRAM
| Read More |
18 Ideas to Help Simplify Your Brew Day
7 Considerations for Making Better Homebrew
List of completed exBEERiments
How-to: Harvest yeast from starters
How-to: Make a lager in less than a month
| Good Deals |
Brand New 5 gallon ball lock kegs discounted to $75 at Adventures in Homebrewing
ThermoWorks Super-Fast Pocket Thermometer On Sale for $19 – $10 discount
Sale and Clearance Items at MoreBeer.com
If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support Us page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!
35 thoughts on “exBEERiment | Water Chemistry: Impact Adjusting The Mash With Minerals And Acid Has On German Pils”
Another great experiment, although it perhaps casts a question on my OCD approach to water chemistry, and the impact. Although my scores have dramatically improved, I am wondering how much of a secondary effect it has on my overall approach to brewing – that is – far more attention to details, care and planning.
The mouthfeel thing has me scratching my head, although the effect could be – as you point out – being blind to the purpose of the experiment and water chem not being the focal point. That level of sulfate ‘should’ effect a substantial drying effect and sharpen up the hop profiles a bit… it seems that effect is more subtle than I would expect. Cool!
I recently made a kolsch using unfiltered, untreated water, which is drawn from a well and provided to my tap after a water softener. To my palate, I found an inappropriate astringency in the finish, and some mild harshness that I couldn’t put a name to.
I shared this brew with my BJCP prep class, with each person completing scoresheets. Scores from 14 people averaged in the high 30’s, although most of the judges identified either astringency, excessive dryness, or a mineral character that was a negative. One judge who has a lot of experience with water chemistry was quite specific on attributing this to high chloride levels.
This was a re-brew of the same recipe I had done a month or so earlier, but which used a very unscientific mixture of mainly distilled water with the balance from the same tap water.
I am convinced that for this recipe/style/process, the water chemistry is relatively important. I have made other beers using the same tap water, particularly brown ales, that did not seem to suffer from the same mineral character.
It is generally suggested not to use water that has been processed by a water softener, as it adds tremendous amounts of some minerals (details of which I can’t remember).
Namely ion exchange for sodium or potassium… typically over 200 ppm residual. But the alkalinity is usually moderated around 30-60 ppm. That said – it is the perfect feed for a small RO unit.
If you’re able to brew darker beers like brown ale quite well, but not lighter beers like kolsch, then it sounds like you’re brewing with high alkalinity water. Dark malts (in brown ales, porters, etc.) are able to overcome the alkalinity and push pH down to a more desirable range – preventing tannin extraction and the astringency it brings. Pale malts (like the grain bill of a kolsch) can’t overcome the alkalinity on their own, needing calcium chloride, gypsum and/or acid additions to bring the pH down.
I’ve just started working my water chemistry as well. My approach has been a minimal addition rather than trying to mimic a specific water source. For example, my water chemistry appears to be similar to yours for mineral content, I add enough gypsum or Calcium chloride to bring my Calcium levels up to between 50 and 60 ppm and Epsom salts to get 10 ppm of Mg. I ratio the gypsum and CaCl to bring the Chloride to Sulfate ratio to balanced or emphasizing the hops (higher Sulfate) or the malt (higher Chloride) as I want the style/recipe to reflect. When I deviate from a balanced profile, I am careful not to go overboard either way.
Started just after the beginning of this year and have not done a methodical side-by-side as you have done, but it does seem to be making a difference — ever so slight in my ind.
You probably don’t need to use Epsom (MgSO4). Grain most likely has enough magnesium in it. Try a side-by-side and see. It’s certainly not hurting anything but if you do want to use the minimalist approach then…. F-it.
My water mantra, as of late, as been less it more (but you need enough). So I keep reducing salts until it seems to matter. Ideally, I’d like to get down to 2 or 3 water treatment profiles total. Which one I use would obviously depend on the beer – pale vs amber vs dark – and then hoppy or malty.
Color will decide the acid addition. and hop vs malt determines the minerals (SO4:Cl).
Great xBmt!! I hope you perform more water chem xBmt’s. What I’m hoping to find is a standard mineral addition for each style of beer. From your test above, I have one for a German Pils now. It seems that if a person started with DI Water then there should be a standard mineral addition for a IPA or a Stout, and you could adjust up or down. You could even package these salt/mineral/acid additions and sell them for each style.
We definitely have more water chem xBmts on the list! I know of many LHBS’ that package “Burton salts,” but to be honest, it’s pretty easy and likely much cheaper to measure the minerals out yourself per batch. Cheers!
Something like this?
https://beerdust.com
Yes, but with the amount of salts to make your own. For example we know a Helles needs soft water with a low mineral profile. So for any brewer that uses DI/RO water there should already a set formula: add x amount of gypsum, add x amount of cal chloride and so on. Obviously adjusted to your setup and mash amount
I’ve been avoiding water treatment for a while – this might motivate me to give it a shot.
Thank you for another fine experiment. I am particularly pleased to see the significant outcome of this one. I have been trying to produce a crisp pilsner for some time now. I use your fast lager fermentation schedule and have worked through several yeasts, basic and complex malt bills and extended lagering. All without any particular success. The beers have been drinkable but not what I expect a crisp pilsner to taste like. The only success I have had is in increasing the carbonation above that of my other beers. That carbonic bite is definitely a factor in getting it right.
I have put off water treatment as I dont have accurate figures for my brewing water profile. I am in the country and our water is rainwater, collected from a coated steel roof and stored in a concrete tank. I think it is very soft so I’m going to have a go with a Pilsen profile for my next pilsner and then perhaps a Munich lager before finally going for the very hard Dortmund profile.
So much brewing to be done :]
Paul one thing you can do is check the alkalinity of the water using a aquarium test kit each brew. From the result of this you can calculate the alkalinity of the water ppm or mg/l. Once you have this you can work out any CRS additions needed to undo any alkalinity buffer (not likely given its rainwater) and then guesstimate the calcium level from the alkalinity. Its all a bit rule of thumb but if you want to do treatment without getting your water scientifically analysed before each brew its a sound option.
I would be interested to this experiment done with moderate or hard (High Alkalinity) water where a good CRS addition is required for pale or brown beers. To be fair the water was pretty on target for the type of beer brewed here. I have a water profile which is almost ideal for Stouts … and boy the stouts it takes out of the tap are perfect… but… pales just have a raw grain taste which takes a good 6-9 week period to condition out and then never totally. This is due to the moderate to high alkalinity of the water buffering too much and not letting the mash PH drop down to target. With high alkalinity water treated and untreated are worlds apart.
It is absolutely in the works!
Top man!
Just a thought, was listening to basic brewing this morning and there was talk of the survey and non treatment of water. I cant remember if it was an option but at least here in the uk its a defacto brewing 101 thing to treat water with campden tablet (sodium metabisulfite) to remove chlorine and chloramin. Just wondered if it was possible that people do not consider that as water treatment in their answer because its just considered an essential step. May not apply in the US so Ill shut up there :o)
I know plenty of folks who use Campden to treat their water, luckily for me, my municipal source only uses a tiny amount of chlorine, so little that my filter gets rid of any perceptible levels.
I know a guy….
The higher mash pH of 5.6 is nearly on target, so it’s surprising you got a significant difference in the beers. I think you’d have got an even greater difference if you’d made an all-pilsner beer. Vienna malt and melanoidin malt both contain melanoidins, which are acidic and lower the mash pH. With a 100% pilsner malt bill the untreated mash pH would have been higher than 5.6. High mash mash doesn’t just affect flavour (causing more astringency by extracting tannins from grain husks) – it is also said to affect clarity and increase chill haze. So it might be interesting to look a chill haze as well as taste. The final pH of the beer is also worth testing – that alone will have an impact on taste and mouthfeel.
Very interesting experiment and it’s great to see someone taking an empirical approach. If there were only more blogs like this.
What about adding all the chemicals in at dough in only vs dough in and sparge vs dough in and boil. I see some calculators give you at mash in additions; others splitting; and some say during mash in and some during the boil. That would be a little work but doable.
Pardon my very long delay. Lost track of this post.
You can add all at dough in but would have to account for how their contribution may change the pH.
Water makes a huge difference! After all your beer is 90% or more water (drink it to stay hydrated). Using a small RO will give you a nice clean water profile to work with. HbrewO.com has a nice system. Sold out at the moment, but email said they would have more in a week.
Thanks. I’ll give it a look.
My water is municipal and runs through a softener, so I don’t use much of it for brewing. I buy RO water from the grocery store (about $2 for 5 gallons). I found some articles over on HomeBrewTalk about how to use this sort of water with all-grain. The main thing there is to make sure your expected mash pH is within a certain range. There’s a concise list of “add this and that” as a baseline, and some exceptions. I’ve done a couple batches this way and it seems to work but I haven’t actually tested the pH.
Your water profile is very neutral! Must be the filtering process? How do you know that’s the makeup, was it tested? I’m curious as mine is quite different and my brothers both even more so. As one poster noted your untreated mash ph w,as in range, higher end, but in range. Not everyone will see the same results, so would be interesting to repeat with someone’s profile that is not so neutral to begin.
I sent my water to Ward Labs for testing, the results almost perfectly matched the data the dude from my water district gave me.
Did you happen to measure the post boil ph or final beer ph? My guess (from similar observations) might be that the crispness of the treated sample might be also due to the likely lower ph achieved in the post boil and subsequent final beer ph. So it could be that the mineral content (flavor) and mash performance (ph) work in tandem to produce a good finished beer.
Cheers,
Justin
I did not but plan to in future iterations of water chem xBmts. Cheers!
The irony is that the “untreated” water profile used to make this Pilsner is basically the profile of city of Pilsen in Czech Republic. Which is incidentally what a lot of people use to brew a “pilsner” (copy the historic city water profile rather than target specific style).
That’s was sort of the reason I did untreated vs treated 🙂
You noticed a difference in the colour of the krausen, the treated being whiter than the untreated. I’m curious as to whether the colour of each beer’s head was also apparent and whether this could have influenced results, if only on a subconscious level.
I remember them being the same.
Is there a place on the website that goes through the water treatment process in more detail. I tried the Bru’n Water spreadsheet and it confused me, as did the John Palmer sheet. I used Beersmith and it was more direct but I feel like I’m shooting in the dark.
https://brulosophy.com/2014/09/29/brewing-water-primer-using-beersmith-and-brun-water/