[gandelf]

Would anyone be interested in taking some time to take a look at my APA water profile and
provide some CONSTRUCTIVE comments? The grain/hop bill is what tastes best for ME. But
having a well 124' into granite, it provides some hardy water. It tastes great for drinking, but as
a brewing liquor, it needs some tweaking. Here is where I'm currently at with EZ Water:

Bookend (FWH/Steeped & Dry Hopped) APA
6 Gallon Batch
OG:1.054
IBU:35.9

Starting Water(ppm):            
Ca:52.8         
Mg:24.4         
Na:7.8         
Cl:5.5         
SO4:12.2         
CaCO3:231         
            
Mash/Sparge Vol(gal):5.5/3.5   
   RO or Distilled %:0%/0%   
            
Total Grain (lb):11         
Non-Roasted Specalty Grain:0.5 Lb            
Beer Color:6.3 SRM      
            
Adjustments (grams) Mash/Boil Kettle:            
CaSO4:2/1.3      
NaHCO3:1/0.6
NaCl:1/0.6      
Lactic Acid (ml):3.5 Mash only               
            
Mash Water/Total water(ppm):            
Ca:75/75   
Mg:24/24   
Na:40/40   
Cl:35/35   
SO4:66/66   
Cl to SO4 Ratio:0.53/0.53   
            
Alkalinity (CaCO3):62         
RA:-5         
Estimated pH:5.51

[dcbc]

For final, into the fermenter, water profile (i.e. adjust for mash, then add the rest to the boil to get your final profile), I'd add some gypsum to boost your sulfates some more.  Don't be afraid to go a little nuts with it either.  I have used a modified version of the water Mike McDole uses on my last two American ales (both an IPA and an APA) and both have turned out very well with the hops really popping.  I know the sulfates look way high, but I think his are in the 300s.

Here is what I ended up with on the APA.

Ca 105 / 11Mg/ Na 14/ SO4 213/ Cl 51/ HCO3 14

[mabrungard]

I concur that the proposed sulfate content is not really that pronounced and bumping the sulfates significantly is OK for an APA.  No need to worry about the chloride/sulfate ratio since it will be depressed even further.  Keeping the chlorides where they are and bumping the sulfates to around 300 is acceptable. 

The Mg is already high enough, so gypsum is your only option.  Recognize that adding a bunch more gypsum will significantly depress the mash water RA.  Depressing RA further than the -5 that you already show will increase the fermentability of the wort and reduce the body.  I'm not sure if that is your goal.  You should be able to reduce the amount of lactic added to the mash for pH control to avoid that effect.  Sparge acidification will be still needed though. 

[dcbc]

When I do this sort of water profile, I use enough gypsum in the mash to reach my target RA, calculate what that water will be when it is diluted with my sparge water, and add the remaining salts to hit the target profile.  I agree that since you're adding gypsum to boost sulfates, there's no reason you shouldn't just drop the lactic acid addition and just use gypsum.

[tomsawyer]

Do people account for the increase in concentration from boiling when they calculate final salt concentrations?

[dcbc]

Yes. I base my kettle additions based on final volume, not preboil volume. I assume minerals are absorbed in the grain, figure the dilution of the minerals based on the amount of water added to the first running to equal final post boil volume. So if I have 4.5 gallons of first runnings, I would calculate the dilution of 6.5 gallons of spare water based on a final vol. Of 11 gallons.

[mabrungard]

It doesn't make any sense to me to use the post boil volume.  In many cases we're trying to duplicate a supposed historic brewing water.  Its not like someone did a post boil water analysis to figure out what the ionic concentrations were way back then.  In my opinion, its the preboil concentrations that should be considered.  This allows the same losses in the mash and the concentration in the boil that happened even in the good old days.

[dcbc]

Sorry, I should have clarified.  If you are trying to mimic a city's water profile, then yes, by all means use preboil volume as your target. Your minerals will concentrate like you were using that city's water unadjusted. But if you're like me, and are shooting for a target mineral concentrations, then you would want to calculate that target using your post boil volume.

[gandelf]

Thanks for the input guys. I do question the focus on high sulfate
numbers, when the BN kahunas keep reiterating it's the ratio that is
important?

[hopfenundmalz]

Thanks for the input guys. I do question the focus on high sulfate
numbers, when the BN kahunas keep reiterating it's the ratio that is
important?

Munich is known for malty beers.  You want a Cl:SO4 ratio of about 2 for a malty beer.  The Munich profile one often reads has the Cl=2 ppm and the SO4=10 ppm, so the ratio is to a bitter beer.  What's up with that?

OK - my example is to illlustrate that the ratio is guideline in my opinion.  Look at the Burton type water specs, and those do not follow the ratio at all.  For small ppm (10 or less) I would not sweat the ratio.  For a Burton style beer don't sweat it either.  If one (Cl or SO4) is aroiund 100, then you might want to pay attention to the ratio.

[tomsawyer]

So you think that a water wqith 2ppm Cl and 4ppm SO4, tastes the same as a water with 150ppm Cl and 300ppm SO4?  I think the ratio has an effect but only when you are dealing with concentrations of the individual salts that are present at levels that have a significant impact on flavor.

I don't exactly understand the theory that salts are absorbed by the grain so you only count the first runnings.  Maybe present in the bound water yes, but the sparge should bring them out just like the sugar so you'd probably get back at least 75-85%.  Which I hadn't thought of that so thanks for making thigns more complicated!  Yes there are chelators in grain but there are also some salts and we basically ignore those too.

[mabrungard]

I'm agreeing with Tom.  The ratio is helpful, but it has to be evaluated for impact.  If the concentrations of these ions are too low they won't have an effect.  Conversely if the brewer blindly considers only the ratio and bumps either sulfate or chloride too high to get the ratio right, there can be an unwelcome taste impact. 

[dcbc]

So you think that a water wqith 2ppm Cl and 4ppm SO4, tastes the same as a water with 150ppm Cl and 300ppm SO4?  I think the ratio has an effect but only when you are dealing with concentrations of the individual salts that are present at levels that have a significant impact on flavor.

I don't exactly understand the theory that salts are absorbed by the grain so you only count the first runnings.  Maybe present in the bound water yes, but the sparge should bring them out just like the sugar so you'd probably get back at least 75-85%.  Which I hadn't thought of that so thanks for making thigns more complicated!  Yes there are chelators in grain but there are also some salts and we basically ignore those too.

The salts are going to be dissolved into solution.  So when the grain absorbs the water, it is absorbing minerals in that water.  Even when you sparge, I don't think you're removing water that is absorbed by the grain (I know mine is nice and saturated when I shovel it out of the cooler afterward).  When I'm figuring out what is in the kettle, I just take the amount of first runnings and dilute that with the difference between that amount and my final volume.  So if my final volume is 11 gallons and I got 5 gallons in first runnings, then I dilute that amount (considering mineral additions) with 6 gallons of whatever I am sparging with (either distilled or my water or a blend) and use the water calculator to figure out what I have preboil.  Then I add minerals to get where I want to be.

You put 5 brewers in a room and ask this question, you might get 3 different answers and 4 different methods to accomplish the goal.   

[tomsawyer]

No you don't remove the bound water but you dilute the same as if it were free.  Otherwise sparging would be useless.  The stuff in that water equilibrates with the free water.  Its all about percentages, the percentage of bound water (and dead space volume) is your percent recovery of sugar from the mash (assuming we're batch sparging) and the ratio of free to bound in the sparge determines the second recovery which you add to the original for your total recovery.  If you get 70% out of first runnings, that means 30% of your water was left behind as bound/dead volume.  Then if your second addition bring you to about the same volume, you'll get anohter 70% of that 30%.

I just don't know if macromolecules like phytin might grab and hold charged molecules (salts).  Sugars aren't charged so they won't have attraction to oppositely charged solids.

[dcbc]

You lost me there with that explanation and apparently have a much greater knowledge of water chemistry than I.  I asked Jamil this same question several months back and was told that this was a logical assumption.  That's not to say that it is the correct assumption.   

But if it's wrong, so be it.  I am not dissatisfied with my results.  So my process remaining consistent is how I am going to replicate these results going forward.  So far, I seem to have been able to achieve with water adjustments what I have been seeking to achieve with regard to extraction, flavor, and fermentation.  As long as this continues to work for me, I am going to continue to do it, wrong or not.  If, at some point, I perceive a problem that I can trace to an improper dilution calculation resulting from inconsistent mineral absorption in the grain, I'll set out to find a solution.