I realize that Galaxy isn’t a new hop but this will be my first pale ale with Galaxy hops. I usually get pretty close to the Pale Ale profile in BruunWater when I make APA’s but I did an APA last year using mostly Citra that seemed a little harsh. I’m wondering if I dial back the sulfates quite a bit if it won’t be better with the fruitier hops. By “dialed back” I mean 125 sulfate/102 chloride. Don’t get me wrong- for my more “traditional” Centennial, CTZ, Cascade types of pale ales I really like the Pale Ale water profile. Just wondering if some of the fruitier hops wouldn’t benefit from a more balanced sulfate/chloride ratio.
I realize that to each his own-why else homebrew?- but I’m wondering if anyone has gone down this path and is willing to share?
Well, Martin (Mr Brunwater) says to try to avoid 100+ ppm sulfate and chloride in the same beer because it can produce a harsh, minerally tasting beer. So that may explain the harshness you’re getting. I don’t think Citra hops are harsh in and of themselves. So, assuming you’re brewing non NEIPA type beers like I do, I’d back the chloride down to 50-60ppm. I used to use the pale ale profile 300 ppm sulfate but I’ve been backing the sulfate down recently to around 160 ppm and like the results. There’s one brewer’s $0.02 for ya! Good luck.
Edit - Since I brought up the NEIPAs, the chloride and sulfate are basically inverted there, ie., well under 100ppm sulfate and over 100ppm chloride (aside from use of up to 20% flaked grains).
Not necessarily - the profile you use is a preference thing. I’m just saying that it’s best to keep chloride levels well under 100 ppm when you use sulfate levels over 100ppm, or vice versa. Overmineralized beer sucks - been there, done it.
Maybe so. Those are more chloride heavy. I can’t speak as a NEIPA expert by any means, but I do trust Martin’s advice and have seen the results in sulfate heavy beers with too much chloride. All in all, I’d rather give water advice to someone on the conservative end and let them run with it.
Perhaps our difference viewpoints might be explained by the starting water. Specifically, a low mineral water - moderate alkalinity is OK - doesn’t produce a beer that has unpleasant mineralogy with high sulfate and chloride but a high mineral one does?
I have to disagree. NEIPA waters that I’ve seen, use high chloride and modest sulfate. On the order of 150 ppm chloride and 75 ppm sulfate seems to work well in the style and is not minerally.
There is latitude in those values and you probably won’t have a minerally flavor until sulfate is near 300 and chloride is near 150 ppm.
Martin, somehow NEIPA got into the conversation along the line.
The op says he is NOT brewing an NEIPA. So my question was shouldn’t the sulfate and chloride be opposite for a non NEIPA? sorry if its me and im just not getting it.
Sulfate 80
Chloride 153
I think I muddied the waters by bringing up NEIPA water salt levels. It used to be easy to get brewers in the ballpark, now you’re not sure what style they’re brewing to be able to give the right advice.
Of course personal preference plays a part, but yes, I’ve found that the more typical sulfate-forward water treatment is welcome in an APA or IPA. The level of that sulfate is certainly a matter of preference.
