The numbers I find quoted are 25% - 35% calcium carry over from mash tun to kettle.
I have assumed the spread may perhaps be related to some brewers using calcium additions to sparge water → maybe.
I have also seen quoted that probrewers like to use 2/3 calcium in the mash and 1/3 calcium in the kettle.
How much all this is true I don’t know but these numers seem to come up most frequently in my research.
So I have been shooting for 100ppm calcium using both calcium chloride and calcium sulfate at various ratios depending if it’s a malt forward beer or a hop forward beer.
Mash tun 100ppm calcium
Sparge water 100ppm calcium
That means my kettle carry over is down to 25 - 35 ppm calcium.
Seems to me I would top off my kettle with 65 - 75ppm calcium to hit the 100 ppm mark.
That’s a 57:43 ratio vs recommended 67:33 ratio - but close enough I believe.
Most of that lost calcium is from reactions with the malt’s phosphate. I wouldn’t worry much about it. The calcium recommendations for water already take that into account.
Kai I don’t understand this statement.
I have been using Brun Water for calculations.
I don’t see where calcium carry over loss is accounted for in this, or any other water program.
Seems like I am coming up short on kettle calcium without a kettle addition.
What I mean is that when we recommend a certain Ca level in the brewing water it assumes that there will be Ca losses in the mash and boil and that the Ca level of the final beer will be lower. This is not anything the brewing calculators account for. All they care about is the mineral level in the brewing water.
I asked a similar Q over on the NB forum (Effects of bicarbonate on brewing water). Your loss numbers seem in the ballpark for what Mr. Brungard responded. It’s a good thread and worth checking out if you’re interested (page 5 for the Ca talk). I can understand not worrying too much about it, but my base water is high in chlorides and sulfates compared to the Ca I get from it, and it’s rather a pita to haul more RO water than I need.
I kinda recall that Palmer assumes a loss of Ca equivalent to the ratio of water lost in the mash, in one place (a brew strong episode, i think…but could be wrong).
Here’s a quote from Mr. Brungard’s writing in that other thread:
“Some data from Sierra Nevada shows that they aim for 50 ppm Ca in their kettle and start with 85 ppm in the tun. That is a 40% loss of calcium, but I think it might be more appropriate to look at just the total loss (35 ppm).”
One source of Ca loss is very easily quantified. That is the Ca that reacts with malt phosphates to release H+ and lower mash pH. Kolbach found that about 28% (1/3.5) are lost that way. So when you start out with 85 ppm you’ll have about 60 ppm left after that reaction. That’s pretty close to the number’s Martin found. There might be other losses that are not as easily quantified but they appear to be less.
So my error in thinking is that I want a final 100ppm calcium in the kettle?
I should be satisfied with 25-35ppm?
I thought yeast perform best with about 100ppm calcium in the fermentor?
Do probrewers then add kettle calcium chloride solely as a flavor ion?
I have to admit I have read the Colin Kaminski/A J DeLange/ Kai thread (all 222 replys) at BN at least two dozen times trying my best to understand this concept and still don’t have it. Granted they are very smart fellows and and I am just an ordinary, average guy (Joe Walsh).
I just recently added CaCl to the kettle just to see the effect. That beer will be ready in about 6 weeks, so if I can remember, I will report back my unscientific findings.
Martin suggested 40 ppm of Ca as a good lower value for the kettle (in the thread I referenced previously). I have previously been using 50, and this will help on occasion (like for bopils).
EDIT: As he points out later, I am wrong about the above. He actually stated that he doesn’t think there is a huge need to make sure that there is at least 50 ppm in the kettle.
Thanks for that data point from Kolbach, Kai. I’ll assume that’s a pretty good ratio to use at the concentrations of malt and Ca we typically encounter in our mashes.
And yup JJ, you could intend your Ca kettle additions for yeast health, beer clarity, beer stone (more of a pro issue), or flavor (via the Cl or SO4 anions). Or all of the above.
It’ll be interesting to see if the water book publishes any new proven data on any of this stuff.
No. I had not made assumptions on kettle Ca concentrations. Only mashing and sparging water concentrations. Its too fuzzy to make assumptions on how much Ca and Mg actually make it through to the boil.
The 40 ppm Ca limit is an empirical assessment of when beerstone problems are likely if that minimum content is not provided in the mashing and sparging water to help precipitate oxalate in the mash. That calcium might effect beerstone forming reactions in the kettle, but I have no idea if adding Ca only to the boil would provide that benefit.
Not to side track, but I wasn’t assuming that Ca kettle additions would be a plus or a minus when it came to beerstone formation. But since Ca is a major component of beerstone, while also being involved in removing the oxalate before a problem is created, then there just might be a diff between 30 ppm or 250 ppm in the kettle that you are concerned about, if you push huge volumes and have gear that is harder to clean than I do. I’d certainly be curious if it were my biz, but don’t really care at less than 200 gal/year.
