9 replies to this topic

[Humperdink]

So I'm moving soon and I got the water reports from the two cities I will likely be moving to. I'm looking at them and what I am reading doesn't seem right. It lists for one city, 20 average Mg/L of bicarbonate, 4.1 of calcium, 3.2 chloride, 16.0 hardness 1.6 of sulphite. This is my first time reading a water report but don't those numbers sound aweful low? In the water chemistry shows on brew strong, I beleive palmer said you want at least 50 PPM of calcium for yeast health, is it possible to only have 4.1? Someone help me out here, this doesn't seem right. Oh and Mg/l = PPM correct?Thanks,C-

[stangbat]

Are you sure the mineral quantities are in mg/L and not milliequivalents per liter (mEq/L)? Double check and then run the numbers through the conversions found in Table 13 here:https://www.howtobre...hapter15-1.htmlI think you'll find that things look much better.

[Humperdink]

Are you sure the mineral quantities are in mg/L and not milliequivalents per liter (mEq/L)? Double check and then run the numbers through the conversions found in Table 13 here:https://www.howtobre...hapter15-1.htmlI think you'll find that things look much better.

Definitely not mEq/l, the units are listed as mg/L. I can't access HTB at work because of the filter, but I'll check it out when I get home. The online conversion calculator said that mg/l was PPM though, is that not the case?ETA : thanks!

[stangbat]

Yes, mg/L is ppm. I'm no water expert, but I agree that those numbers seem really low. Maybe someone else can shed more light. You may have to call your water company and verify the values/units in the report.

[Humperdink]

Yes, mg/L is ppm. I'm no water expert, but I agree that those numbers seem really low. Maybe someone else can shed more light. You may have to call your water company and verify the values/units in the report.

I'm likely to send it to ward labs also to confim and get more difinitive numbers, I was just looking for a round about range for the area for when I move. Thing is both reports from the ajacent cities are in the same range... Thanks bud

[tag]

Sure, if it's surface water it can be very soft.

[NWPines]

Those #s seem reasonable to me. As tag said, depends on the source, but some areas can have very soft water. Out of curiosity, where are those #s from?FWIW, our municipal water here is very soft - here's the profile for my tap water:Ca 3.5ppmMg 0 ppmAlk 22.5 ppmNa 5.4 ppmCl 2.3 ppmSO4 4.6 ppm

[stellarbrew]

Your numbers are even lower than mine, but in the same ball park. What is nice about that kind of water is that you can brew anything you want by adding the appropriate salts.

[Humperdink]

Those #s seem reasonable to me. As tag said, depends on the source, but some areas can have very soft water. Out of curiosity, where are those #s from?FWIW, our municipal water here is very soft - here's the profile for my tap water:Ca 3.5ppmMg 0 ppmAlk 22.5 ppmNa 5.4 ppmCl 2.3 ppmSO4 4.6 ppm

Those numbers are from el dorado hills, CA and Folsom, CA. Not too far outside of Sacramento, apparently most of the water comes from folsom lake and jenkinson lake in Placerville, depending on the city and its water district.Those numbers just seem really small to me in comparison to some of the numbers I've read and heard before. I'm not complaining though because like stellar brew said, I can make damn near everything without having to dilute with RO or distilled. Thanks guys, i appreciate it!

[stangbat]

Wow, I didn't realize that some municipal water was that soft. My water is very good, it was even runner up for best tasting water in the US in 2007. I know that doesn't automatically mean it is good for brewing, but at least it doesn't taste bad. Thankfully it doesn't take much to tweak my water to be able to brew about any style.