Author: Marshall Schott

Maybe 6 or 7 years ago, I went for a breakfast visit with my beautiful and ailing Grandma Jan. She’d waited for me to arrive before starting the coffee, as she wanted the Folgers to be fresh for her grandson, a typical gesture of thoughtfulness from this sweet soul. She added the appropriate amount of water to the reservoir and scooped the coffee into the paper cone, then she did something I wasn’t expecting and sprinkled table salt onto the grounds. I thought perhaps her age and illness were responsible, “Grandma, you’re putting salt in the coffee?” She responded, “Yes, dear, steak tastes good alone, but seasoning makes it taste much better.” Touché, grandma. And the coffee was good.

This is one of those memories that comes up often, for no obvious reason I can think of, a bright spot that serves to mentally resurrect the beauty that was my grandma. A couple years after that morning, while preparing a pot for my wife and me, I thought about my grandma’s method and impetuously added a couple dashes of salt to the mound of grounds. It seemed to make the coffee taste different, my wife agreed, then I began to wonder how the different salts I use for making beer might impact the coffee’s flavor. I did some messing around comparing gypsum to calcium chloride and perceived some definite differences.

While this isn’t about coffee and perhaps a bit sentimental, I think the analogy is clear– the chemistry of the water we use to make our beer seems to make a difference. Of all the xBmt variables we’ve tested, those focused on water chemistry have consistently returned significant results, suggesting to me, to paraphrase my grandma, “Beer tastes good alone, but seasoning can make it taste better.” Or at least different.

Over the last year, due mostly to conversations I’ve had with people who know way more than me about this stuff, I’ve focused my water adjustments primarily on chloride to sulfate ratios (Cl-:SO4) and mash pH, which requires the use of 3 simple and cheap ingredients: calcium chloride (CaCl), calcium sulfate (gypsum), and lactic acid. I’ve had great success… when I remember to use them. This xBmt was inspired by forgetfulness, not just my own, but the folks who have emailed me seeking my thoughts on making mineral adjustments to finished beer, those they failed to make earlier in the process. Rather than conjecture, I figured I’d test it out for myself.

| PURPOSE |

To investigate the differences between 2 beers produced from the same wort where the Cl-:SO4 ratio was adjusted post-fermentation, half to 1:2 and the other half to 1:1.

| METHODS |

I’ve never been a huge fan of stereotypically Belgian ale with their high levels of phenols and esters, just not my thing. However, after my friends Sean and Aaron returned from a beer excursion to Belgium, they informed me such character was almost impossible to find in the actual region, explaining the beers they had were crisp and clean with a much more subtle yeast character. Sean made it his mission to reproduce these beers he had come to love, which started with a hunt for the right yeast. After going through nearly all of White Labs’ library of Belgian strains and failing to achieve the results he was looking for, Sean snagged a vial of WLP515 Antwerp Ale yeast, purportedly sourced from the famed De Koninck brewery. Finally, Sean was brewing beers with exactly the character he was after, delicious, crisp, mostly clean with phenol and ester subtleties that made me a believer. Unfortunately, WLP515 is a Platinum strain with a limited window of availability that just so happens to be right now! I’ll get to my impressions on the beer later, but right up front, I love this yeast and encourage anyone interested to grab a vial before it’s too late, the only place I’ve been able to find it currently is Adventures in Homebrewing. With good sanitation, you can easily stretch a single vial out over a year by harvesting from starters, which is exactly what I planned to do.

Inspired by a pale beer House of Pendragon made with this strain, I designed a simple recipe using only the hops a friend from New Zealand brought back to me on her last visit.

Wakatu Belgian Pale Ale

Recipe Details Batch Size Boil Time IBU SRM Est. OG Est. FG ABV 11 gal 60 min 27.8 IBUs 4.6 SRM 1.054 1.012 5.5 % Actuals 1.054 1.013 5.4 % Fermentables Name Amount % Pilsner (Weyermann) 18 lbs 90 Honey Malt (Gambrinus) 1 lbs 5 Vienna Malt 1 lbs 5 Hops Name Amount Time Use Form Alpha % Wakatu 30 g 60 min First Wort Pellet 7.1 Wakatu 30 g 25 min Boil Pellet 7.1 Wakatu 40 g 2 min Boil Pellet 7.1 Yeast Name Lab Attenuation Temperature Antwerp Ale Yeast (WLP515) White Labs 77% 67°F - 70°F Notes Post-Fermentation Mineral Additions:



- Added 1.1 grams gypsum to achieve SO4:Cl- of 2:1 (106:53) | Ca = 93 ppm



- Added 1.9 grams CaCl to achieve SO4:Cl- of 1:1 (84:84) | Ca = Ca 83

Two days prior to brewing, I used my preferred online calculator to determine the starter size accounting for the amount I’d steal for later use.

Not even 24 hours later, I observed an odd looking kräusen and the scent of egg fart emanating from the flask.

I consulted with Sean, just to be sure, he said this was perfectly normal. The evening before my planned brew day, I collected my water and milled the grains. Given the blank-slate nature of my water, I added a small amount of minerals to my brewing liquor at this time.

The following morning, I quickly heated my strike water to the temperature BeerSmith recommended, which allowed me to hit my target mash temp dead-on.

Since this was a 10 gallon batch, I used the batch sparge method, collecting the first runnings before adding the hot sparge water then running off the rest of the sweet wort and putting it over the flame.

Hops were added at the appropriate times during the 60 minute boil, then the wort was quickly chilled and racked to sanitized carboys, which were placed in my fermentation chamber regulated to 66˚F/19˚C. I split the yeast starter evenly between each batch and let them ferment a few days before ramping the temp to encourage complete attenuation and clean-up of undesirable fermentation by-products. After about 10 days, with both beers sitting at the expected FG of 1.012, I cold crashed then fined with gelatin. Packaging day arrived and it was time to introduce the independent variable. It probably goes without saying that samples at this point were perceptibly exactly the same. Using the Bru’n Water spreadsheet, I determined a Cl-:SO4 of 1:2 would require the addition of 1.1 grams of gypsum while a 1:1 ratio called for 1.9 grams of calcium chloride. It seemed like nothing. Inconsequential or not, it should be noted the 1:1 batch that was dosed with calcium chloride was calculated as having 10 ppm more calcium than the batch receiving gypsum.

I tossed the minerals in the bottom of separate sanitized kegs before racking the beer on top, gently swirling throughout to ensure the salts fully dissolved.

Once full, the kegs were placed in my keezer and hit with 45 psi of CO2 for 18 hours before being purged and set to my preferred serving pressure of 12 psi. A few days later, I pulled the first finished samples and noticed the 1:1 (CaCl) ratio beer was slightly hazy while the 1:2 (gypsum) beer was crystal clear, it took about 3 days for them to look the same, which is when I started presenting them to tasters.

| RESULTS |

Twenty-one people participated in this xBmt including BJCP judges, experienced homebrewers, and dedicated craft beer drinkers. Each taster, blind to the variable being investigated, was served 2 samples of the 1:1 ratio beer (CaCl) and 1 sample of the 1:2 ratio beer (gypsum) in different colored opaque cups then instructed to select the unique sample. Given the sample size, a total of 11 correct selections would have been required to achieve statistical significance (p<0.05). In total, 12 tasters (p=0.010) correctly identified the 1:2 beer as being different, indicating participants were reliably able to distinguish it from the sample adjusted to a ratio of 1:1 with calcium chloride.

A brief comparative evaluation of just the 2 different beers was completed by the 12 correct tasters. While exactly half (6) preferred the sample dosed with gypsum at packaging, only 2 said they preferred the other sample with 4 noting a difference but no strong preference for either. Following revelation of the nature of the xBmt and a brief explanation of the expected effect, tasters were asked to choose the sample they thought received the gypsum, 7 made the correct selection while 5 chose the wrong sample.

My Impressions: It’s possible I’m becoming sensitive to the impact these minerals have on beer, or perhaps it’s just because of my obvious bias, but I was rather easily able to tell these beers apart in multiple “blind” triangle tests. To me, the 1:1 (CaCl) beer was basically what I expected, slightly malty with a rounded overall character and a softer mouthfeel, while the 1:2 (gypsum) sample was notably crisper with a sharper bitterness that left me with a pleasingly cleaner palate. Both beers were great and more similar than different, but I absolutely preferred the 1:2 beer.

The beer itself was one of the better I’ve made all year, which is really saying something considering it’s mid-December. In addition to the aforementioned characteristics, the interplay of the German Pils malt with the Wakatu hops and WLP515 Anwerp Ale yeast was really something, bready with a hint of fresh fruit and some gentle Belgian spice to back it all up. This beer certainly hit the mark for being full flavored and supremely drinkable, I think I’ll go pull a pint right now!

| DISCUSSION |

As an interesting stroke of coincidence, the January-February issue of Brew Your Own magazine, in which 3 Brülosophy xBmts were covered, had an article on post-fermentation adjustments by Kyle Kohlmorgen where he touches on adding minerals to the keg. Additionally, a Google search on the topic revealed multiple posts in homebrewing forums on the issue of manipulating finished beer by adding salts at packaging. People are obviously curious and with most of what I found being either anecdotal reports of individual brewers’ experiences or discussions about the pros and cons of post-fermentation adjustments, it’s cool to be able to say with at least some impartiality that making such additions did produce a distinguishable difference for this panel of tasters

Briefly, it’s important to consider the impact mineral additions have on mash pH when deciding how to approach such adjustments, as it may work in your favor to make such additions during the mash in order to ensure optimal mashing conditions. Personally, I absolutely plan to continue making mash adjustments while viewing post-fermentation mineral additions as more of a corrective measure. To each their own, of course.

If you’ve messed around with making mineral or even acid additions to finished beer, please share your experience in the comments section below!

Support Brülosophy In Style!

All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!

Follow Brülosophy on:

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!

Advertisements

Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

Email



Like this: Like Loading...