[PORTERHAUS]

I have never adjusted my water in such a way for a Pale Ale. Did a search but didn't bring up a lot with exactly the Bru'n Water profile. Does anyone use exactly that profile, have any input on it? It's just a big jump from what I normally do but I think that is why I'm looking forward to trying it. Is it really work well for a Pale Ale?

[Stevie]

I use it or McDole's water for anything hoppy. They are very similar with McDole's having slightly higher sulfate. Be prepared to use a lot of gypsum and a fair amount of Epsom to hit the higher sulfate.

[PORTERHAUS]

Thanks Steve. I ran the numbers in Bru'n water. I need over 7g Gypsum in the mash and almost 9g to the kettle. That's a whole lot of Gypsum. I have heard good things about Tasty's water profile and he uses it for just about everything and with good results it would seem.

Thanks for the reply. I will only know after I try it.

[stpug]

I have never adjusted my water in such a way for a Pale Ale. Did a search but didn't bring up a lot with exactly the Bru'n Water profile. Does anyone use exactly that profile, have any input on it? It's just a big jump from what I normally do but I think that is why I'm looking forward to trying it. Is it really work well for a Pale Ale?

I've used it twice, both times the mineral content was much too high for my liking. I simply did not like the effect left on the middle-back of my tongue after each sip. I now typically consider about 150ppm my upper limit for sufate levels in pale ale (and similar) style beers. Just personal preference really.

You can get the idea of what it does in terms of effect by tasting the strike/mash/sparge water prior to using.

[HoosierBrew]

I now typically consider about 150ppm my upper limit for sufate levels in pale ale (and similar) style beers. Just personal preference really.

Same here. I used to use the full profile but I've backed off to ~ 150ppm myself. The minerally bite got to be more than I liked. Preference, too.

[mainebrewer]

I also find the Pale Ale profile to be to minerally when I use it for my APA.
I do like that profile on my AIPA, though.

[PORTERHAUS]

I have been looking to add that hop pop to my APA's and IPA's since I feel its something that has been missing. I dont necessarily know if I can interpret the minerally character since I have never tasted it to compare. Im debating going all out or backing the Sulfates down some to around 200 or so. For what its worth this beer is being brewed to have ready for a St Patty's party. It will probably be fined with gelatin and drank quickly so there will not be much conditioning time on it. How do you guys think the higher Sulfate profile would go with that...for better or worse?

[stpug]

You already know my feelings on ~300ppm sulfate levels so I won't reiterate them. One thing is true though: You'll never know what 300ppm sulfate levels are like unless you try them (at least once) . In other words, how will YOU ever know if YOU like those levels unless YOU try them in a beer? YOU won't, so you have to try it.  Definitely try them and decide for yourself.

As for trying them out for a party beer, that's up to you. High sulfate levels are noticeable and not always welcome. If you're dealing with folks who are regularly drinking the most bitter IPAs found these days then they probably will be accustomed to high sulfate levels in their beer and won't notice/mind too much. Aside from those heavily-bittered IPA drinkers, most folks will notice a character or sensation in the beer (for better or worse). 200ppm should be fairly noticeable too, but not quite as "gripping" as 300. If you're brewing a bitter hoppy beer then give it shot, or aim a bit lower to play it more subtly.

What beer are you planning to brew for St Patrick's Day anyway?

As far as conditioning beers with high sulfate levels, I've never experienced or heard of a difference. It should condition as quickly as any other beer in my book.

[PORTERHAUS]

You already know my feelings on ~300ppm sulfate levels so I won't reiterate them. One thing is true though: You'll never know what 300ppm sulfate levels are like unless you try them (at least once) . In other words, how will YOU ever know if YOU like those levels unless YOU try them in a beer? YOU won't, so you have to try it.  Definitely try them and decide for yourself.

As for trying them out for a party beer, that's up to you. High sulfate levels are noticeable and not always welcome. If you're dealing with folks who are regularly drinking the most bitter IPAs found these days then they probably will be accustomed to high sulfate levels in their beer and won't notice/mind too much. Aside from those heavily-bittered IPA drinkers, most folks will notice a character or sensation in the beer (for better or worse). 200ppm should be fairly noticeable too, but not quite as "gripping" as 300. If you're brewing a bitter hoppy beer then give it shot, or aim a bit lower to play it more subtly.

What beer are you planning to brew for St Patrick's Day anyway?

As far as conditioning beers with high sulfate levels, I've never experienced or heard of a difference. It should condition as quickly as any other beer in my book.

Thanks for your input. I'm brewing 2 beers for a friends party actually. I already have a Kolsch that is almost ready to keg. The other will be a Pale Ale. The Kolsch is for the lighter beer drinkers. The Pale Ale is a recipe I have brewed a few times now, but I would like to try the water adjustments with it. The people drinking the Pale Ale are craft beer and IPA drinkers. I'm leaning towards the 200ppm Sulfate area. Like you said, I won't know what it's like until I try it, but 300 might be pushing it for this particular beer.

[mabrungard]

A caution to any brewers using highly mineralized profiles like the Pale Ale profile: If your brewing system and practices are boiling off more than about 10% of the original wort volume, you could easily be over-concentrating the mineral content in the resulting wort and beer. Pro systems typically lose about 5% to 8% since they are more covered than the typical homebrewer's setup, so be aware that this hazard of boiling off too much is there. This is especially true for brewers that make smaller batches.

It may not be the profile, it may be the boil-off rate!

[Stevie]

A caution to any brewers using highly mineralized profiles like the Pale Ale profile: If your brewing system and practices are boiling off more than about 10% of the original wort volume, you could easily be over-concentrating the mineral content in the resulting wort and beer. Pro systems typically lose about 5% to 8% since they are more covered than the typical homebrewer's setup, so be aware that this hazard of boiling off too much is there. This is especially true for brewers that make smaller batches.

It may not be the profile, it may be the boil-off rate!

I've mentioned this before after a hard knock lesson. Brewed a 1 gal batch with 1 gal boil off. Yuk! Ever since I reduce my kettle additions by my boil off rate for both big and small batches.

[brewinhard]

I have never adjusted my water in such a way for a Pale Ale. Did a search but didn't bring up a lot with exactly the Bru'n Water profile. Does anyone use exactly that profile, have any input on it? It's just a big jump from what I normally do but I think that is why I'm looking forward to trying it. Is it really work well for a Pale Ale?

You can get the idea of what it does in terms of effect by tasting the strike/mash/sparge water prior to using.

Interesting.  I will have to try this next time.

[PORTERHAUS]

I went with the Pale Ale profile but kept the sulfates lower at ~200ppm which is still much more than I have ever had in any beer so I should still get an idea for the impact without going too far for this beer. I need something to gauge the impact so figured that's a good starting point. Looking forward to trying the beer and seeing if I get that hop pop I think has been missing in my hoppy beers.

[Wort-H.O.G.]

A caution to any brewers using highly mineralized profiles like the Pale Ale profile: If your brewing system and practices are boiling off more than about 10% of the original wort volume, you could easily be over-concentrating the mineral content in the resulting wort and beer. Pro systems typically lose about 5% to 8% since they are more covered than the typical homebrewer's setup, so be aware that this hazard of boiling off too much is there. This is especially true for brewers that make smaller batches.

It may not be the profile, it may be the boil-off rate!

interesting. I wonder if this is why some of us doing 5/10 gal batches have since lowered our sulfate content to around 150ppm on APA/AIPA and found it more appealing vs 200+PPM. my boil off exceeds 10%.

edit: Martin-any thoughts on adding boil off % as variable input in Bru.n Water that then adjusts mineral contents?

[blatz]

A caution to any brewers using highly mineralized profiles like the Pale Ale profile: If your brewing system and practices are boiling off more than about 10% of the original wort volume, you could easily be over-concentrating the mineral content in the resulting wort and beer. Pro systems typically lose about 5% to 8% since they are more covered than the typical homebrewer's setup, so be aware that this hazard of boiling off too much is there. This is especially true for brewers that make smaller batches.

It may not be the profile, it may be the boil-off rate!

interesting. I wonder if this is why some of us doing 5/10 gal batches have since lowered our sulfate content to around 150ppm on APA/AIPA and found it more appealing vs 200+PPM. my boil off exceeds 10%.

edit: Martin-any thoughts on adding boil off % as variable input in Bru.n Water that then adjusts mineral contents?

yeah my boil off is about 13%