Even though I include a researched Burton water profile, I caution its use. Here is a discussion that I presented on HomeBrew Talk yesterday on the same subject.
"As AJ says, lower mineral concentions are probably better for producing good beer.
For instance, the groundwater in Burton is the result of upwelling from the Mercia Mudstone (a gypsum-bearing formation) into the surficial sand and gravel aquifer where it mixes with groundwater from rainfall infiltration and Trent River inflow. The more the brewers of the region utilized that water source, the more the dilution from these other sources. The amount of rainfall and river level also affect the groundwater quality.
The location of the water supply well also has an influence. At Marston Brewery, the sulfate content is up to 800 ppm, while at Coors Brewery the sulfate content was only about 200 ppm. These were sampled at the same time and come from the same sand and gravel aquifer. So, defining a 'true' Burton water profile is impossible.
I've included a balanced Burton water profile in Bru'n Water that was estimated based on the relative concentrations of ions observed from that aquifer, but clearly those concentrations could be higher or lower. At over 600 ppm sulfate, the provided profile is not as extreme as that groundwater gets, but its pretty mineralized. I would personally be reluctant to brew with that Burton profile and would go with the Pale Ale profile that is also included in Bru'n Water as a first try for brewing a good hoppy beer (300 ppm sulfate). A less mineralized water profile is also going to produce a good beer, but it might not have the 'pop' a brewer is looking for. Its all dependent on the brewer's taste and skill.
Personally, I'm with AJ in believing that a 'less is more' mantra is more likely to produce a good beer.
Use water profiles with caution."