[Iliff Ave]

I was drinking some Urquell last night and thought about giving it a shot. I assume the pilsen water profile is what I want, correct? I can cut my water with 75% RO to get there. What is a good mash pH for this style? Thinking 5.45 or so

[HoosierBrew]

I went 5.3 or 5.35 on my last BoPils.  A little lower pH gives a nice crispness to lagers.

[denny]

No, you want a flavor/color profile, not a city profile.  You have no idea if the city profile is accurate or if they do anything to the city water before brewing with it.  I've found I get much better results by specifying the color of the beer and flavor profile.

[Iliff Ave]

No, you want a flavor/color profile, not a city profile.  You have no idea if the city profile is accurate or if they do anything to the city water before brewing with it.  I've found I get much better results by specifying the color of the beer and flavor profile.

Okay well doesn't something like Urquell use very soft water with minimal mineral content? Do you maybe have a profile that would be better suited for this? I have never used a city profile but it seemed appropriate here.

[Iliff Ave]

I went 5.3 or 5.35 on my last BoPils.  A little lower pH gives a nice crispness to lagers.

Gotcha. Urquell doesn't come across as very crisp to me however I am not necessarily looking to clone it. I have a light lager fermenting now that I think I went with a mash pH of 5.35

[denny]

No, you want a flavor/color profile, not a city profile.  You have no idea if the city profile is accurate or if they do anything to the city water before brewing with it.  I've found I get much better results by specifying the color of the beer and flavor profile.

Okay well isn't something like Urquell use very soft water with minimal mineral content? Do you maybe have a profile that would be better suited for this? I have never used a city profile but it seemed appropriate here.

That's the rumor, but how do you know?  How do you know the city profile in the software is what the water is like now?  How do you know the brewery doesn't treat the water?  Believe me, use Bru'nwater and use color/flavor, not city. 

[Iliff Ave]

No, you want a flavor/color profile, not a city profile.  You have no idea if the city profile is accurate or if they do anything to the city water before brewing with it.  I've found I get much better results by specifying the color of the beer and flavor profile.

Okay well isn't something like Urquell use very soft water with minimal mineral content? Do you maybe have a profile that would be better suited for this? I have never used a city profile but it seemed appropriate here.

That's the rumor, but how do you know?  How do you know the city profile in the software is what the water is like now?  How do you know the brewery doesn't treat the water?  Believe me, use Bru'nwater and use color/flavor, not city.

Sorry just looking for help. I obviously don't know much. I will avoid the rumors and change the direction...

[denny]

Sorry just looking for help. I obviously don't know much. I will avoid the rumors and change the direction...

no reason for you to be sorry, and I apologize if I inferred you didn't know what you were doing.  But I can't think of any case where a city profile will work out better than color/flavor.

[HoosierBrew]

FWIW, I use Yellow Balanced for it, but back off on sulfate, to give the beer a soft character like the water supposedly has there. I like the color/flavor profiles best, too.


EDIT - I'll post when I get home to check my notes. I backed off on the sulfate that was in the yellow balanced profile, but it was more than was in yellow malty. I liked the beer quite a bit.

[Iliff Ave]

Thanks guys. I only understand the basics of water treatment right now and can get easily confused...haha. I am glad that I have not used a city profile like I almost did for my alt. 'Amber bitter' worked well.

[mabrungard]

While the Color based water profiles in Bru'n Water are modestly mineralized profiles that are well-suited for ales, most lagers can actually benefit from less mineralization.  However, 'less' does not mean none!

We have it from Dr. Narziss that PU does not use the raw tap water in Pilsen. They do mineralize the water somewhat and that mineralization does include gypsum. Unfortunately, we don't have details on the levels they take their mineralization. From other anecdotal evidence, it does seem that very modest mineralization is all that is necessary. On the order of 20 to 30 ppm calcium along with some chloride and sulfate tends to produce good lagers. That mineralization is primarily for flavor...the beer tastes better.

Since there are benefits in using a higher calcium content in the mashing water to help precipitate oxalate, the new supporter's version of Bru'n Water includes a setting that assumes that all of your sparging mineral additions are added directly to the mash tun in order to boost the Ca content. It does all the recalculation of the mash pH at the higher Ca and Mg levels and also reports the diluted levels of all the ions in the kettle (this assumes that the sparging water has no additional minerals). Since lager yeast performance is enhanced by reduced calcium content and there is less flavor from the low mineralized water, this setting provides the best of both worlds. Low mineralization in the kettle and higher mineralization in the mash for oxalate removal.

 

[Iliff Ave]

Thanks for chiming in Martin. I think I have a good idea of what direction to go now...hopefully. I think I can get away with a small CaCl addition to make a finished profile of:

Ca -28
Mg - 7
Na - 14
SO4 - 33
Cl - 26

kind of minimalist here but I think I may as well give it a go. Normally I am pushing Ca, SO4, and Cl all above 50 ppm so I like the idea of switching it up even if it isn't 'correct'. Could give me a good comparison with my lager that basically followed the 'yellow balanced' profile.

[wobdee]

While the Color based water profiles in Bru'n Water are modestly mineralized profiles that are well-suited for ales, most lagers can actually benefit from less mineralization.  However, 'less' does not mean none!

We have it from Dr. Narziss that PU does not use the raw tap water in Pilsen. They do mineralize the water somewhat and that mineralization does include gypsum. Unfortunately, we don't have details on the levels they take their mineralization. From other anecdotal evidence, it does seem that very modest mineralization is all that is necessary. On the order of 20 to 30 ppm calcium along with some chloride and sulfate tends to produce good lagers. That mineralization is primarily for flavor...the beer tastes better.

Since there are benefits in using a higher calcium content in the mashing water to help precipitate oxalate, the new supporter's version of Bru'n Water includes a setting that assumes that all of your sparging mineral additions are added directly to the mash tun in order to boost the Ca content. It does all the recalculation of the mash pH at the higher Ca and Mg levels and also reports the diluted levels of all the ions in the kettle (this assumes that the sparging water has no additional minerals). Since lager yeast performance is enhanced by reduced calcium content and there is less flavor from the low mineralized water, this setting provides the best of both worlds. Low mineralization in the kettle and higher mineralization in the mash for oxalate removal.

 

So what level of SO4 would you recommend for a PU type Pils? I've heard it should be low when using Noble hops.

[hopfenundmalz]

While the Color based water profiles in Bru'n Water are modestly mineralized profiles that are well-suited for ales, most lagers can actually benefit from less mineralization.  However, 'less' does not mean none!

We have it from Dr. Narziss that PU does not use the raw tap water in Pilsen. They do mineralize the water somewhat and that mineralization does include gypsum. Unfortunately, we don't have details on the levels they take their mineralization. From other anecdotal evidence, it does seem that very modest mineralization is all that is necessary. On the order of 20 to 30 ppm calcium along with some chloride and sulfate tends to produce good lagers. That mineralization is primarily for flavor...the beer tastes better.

Since there are benefits in using a higher calcium content in the mashing water to help precipitate oxalate, the new supporter's version of Bru'n Water includes a setting that assumes that all of your sparging mineral additions are added directly to the mash tun in order to boost the Ca content. It does all the recalculation of the mash pH at the higher Ca and Mg levels and also reports the diluted levels of all the ions in the kettle (this assumes that the sparging water has no additional minerals). Since lager yeast performance is enhanced by reduced calcium content and there is less flavor from the low mineralized water, this setting provides the best of both worlds. Low mineralization in the kettle and higher mineralization in the mash for oxalate removal.

 

So what level of SO4 would you recommend for a PU type Pils? I've heard it should be low when using Noble hops.

I would keep it low for a PU or Czech style lager for a round bitterness that does not linger long. For a Dry German Pils I target 70-90 ppm SO4. They both use noble hops.

[Iliff Ave]

I would keep it low for a PU or Czech style lager for a round bitterness that does not linger long. For a Dry German Pils I target 70-90 ppm SO4. They both use noble hops.
[/quote]
How low is low?