TOPIC:

I think Dave Barry[/url:4cm33arq] sums it up best:
"Not all chemicals are bad. Without chemicals such as hydrogen and oxygen, for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in beer."

he's a bit of a beer fan by all accounts:
"Without question, the greatest invention in the history of mankind is beer. Oh, I grant you that the wheel was also a fine invention, but the wheel does not go nearly as well with pizza."

"When I heated my home with oil, I used an average of 800 gallons a year. I have found that I can keep comfortably warm for an entire winter with slightly over half that quantity of beer."

Sulphites

I reckon they might be the thing I have an allergy to.
I get an awful hangover from wines that appear to have been improved with sulphites ,

I know they occur naturally in small quantities in wine anyway , but some winemakers ( chilean especially) use a lot of them .


Anyhow , my own feeling is that any chemical that comes in a tub drum or other form that has been processed in a chemical factory or lab , has no real business in beer .

Brewing is a nice chemical process , getting good clean water and adding organic materials ( malt hops ) and yeast is all that's really needed.

I can of course understand the whole carbonation of macro brews thing , in terms of a macro brew having the need to produce vast amounts and ship them far thus having to have a certain amount of extra processing to avoid oxidation. but that's about it .


On the question of salts and water treatment . I can only speak for water treatment in Cork , but the water here is filtered through a natural sandstone aquifer , removing most organics and debris , then it is filtered in the waterworks to remove any remaining dirt , then a little chlorine is added for sanitation and a little flouride for public health reasons . that's it .
As for salts to produce beer styles , I can only say that in my limited knowledge salts are used to improve efficiency . they are not used to replicate a style , but used to replicate the efficiency of a style . Thus I don't even see the need for them other than in a commercial sense . Maybe I'm oversimplifying though , but that's how I feel .

"Saruman":1buza6d0 wrote: I used to use campden tablets when I did extract but not since I did all grain and to be honest I don't miss it.
I think most of the chlorine gets boiled off anyway as I heat the water and whatever is left makes no difference to the beer from what I can see tell.[/quote:1buza6d0]

Either you are lucky and have water with low level chlorine or you have a high taste threshold for the phenolics formed by the chlorine acting on the wort.

I've forgot to add it once or twice and its been terrible, its like drinking kit beer again yuck!!

Wallacebiy:

[quote:1axc5kvd]On the question of salts and water treatment . I can only speak for water treatment in Cork , but the water here is filtered through a natural sandstone aquifer , removing most organics and debris , then it is filtered in the waterworks to remove any remaining dirt , then a little chlorine is added for sanitation and a little flouride for public health reasons . that's it .
As for salts to produce beer styles , I can only say that in my limited knowledge salts are used to improve efficiency . they are not used to replicate a style , but used to replicate the efficiency of a style . Thus I don't even see the need for them other than in a commercial sense . Maybe I'm oversimplifying though , but that's how I feel .[/quote:1axc5kvd]

I don't agree with this. Most of the beer we drink could not be brewed without water treatment because almost all brewing water is deficient in required elements such as calcium.

When a brewer adds various minerals to match a style he has the flavour profile of the beer in mind. Beers that have proved worthy of emulation tend to be brewed in regions for generations and the water is suitable. Burton on Trent springs to mind. The water from Burton is very high in gypsum - giving the characteristic sulphurous nose and crispness, but also brilliantly bright beer because of the high calcium content that accompanies the sulphate.

Calcium improves efficiency, but at the time, the the regions that brewed the best beer did not understand the chemistry. Certain water supplies worked well and breweries sprang up there. Nowadays we understand the chemistry and add calcium to improve things. But at the same time, I add sulphate and chloride for flavour reasons and not just to aid efficiency.

[quote:ajylpo10]Calcium improves efficiency, but at the time, the the regions that brewed the best beer did not understand the chemistry[/quote:ajylpo10]
I presume it comes down to efficiency. You could get all your beer from the few places on earth that have great water without treatment. But it would cost an awful lot more.

I am happy that brewers can add calcium if it makes the beer a lot cheaper. As I am for them to add yeast for the same reason (as long as some still brew lambic)

I'm pretty much in agreement with Hendrixcat, though I figure that most regions on the cooler side of temperate brewed beer, and through a market-based version of natural selection ended up brewing styles of beer that were best-matched, or at perhaps just the least ill-suited, to the mineral profile of the water supply they had.

I don't regard adding select minerals to better match my local water to that found in the area that originated the style of beer I'm trying to duplicate to be an unacceptable artifice.