As a new brewer I'll be asking a lot of asinine questions (my apologies in advance, BobNQ3X... please disregard them) in the coming weeks, and I truly do appreciate the forum! I'm probably years ahead in my learning curve!
Cascadie,
I'm not going to disregard your questions! There are only a couple of stupid questions, and I'll even answer those!
Answering a question is much simpler if the questioner has already done work to answer his own question, whether that's using an instrument to gauge a process or simply using the "Search" button. It's easier to answer the question if you list all of the data you've accumulated thus far when posing it, you see? Otherwise I have to ask you a bunch of questions of my own like a prosecutor interrogating a witness. And I'm no Sam Waterston.
Part of my question was, could I have made my first attempt a better brew with a hydrometer?
Again, no, you don't
need a hydrometer when brewing from extract. You should have one nonetheless. It gives more data points for investigation should something go amiss.
I used the John Palmer webbook and I don't recall that he gave a starting gravity (rereading it, I see that there's no hydrometer listed and he even says the thermometer is optional!) so I guess I don't even have a starting point.
You do and you don't. Using extract, OG can be calculated quite simply. Extract has known gravity contributions per pound per gallon (ppg). So if you know how much extract was used and how many gallons you started with, you can figure your OG within a couple of points. Software makes that easy.
Not to belabor the point, but would I be shooting for a starting gravity for that style of beer in this case?
Sure. Different styles have different OGs. Sometimes OG is part of the definition of the style/substyle, like between Ordinary Bitter and ESB.
To save you the trouble of looking back, my five gallon batch came up a gallon short at bottling time and the beer seems 'thick' to me.
Now there's the crucial element to this whole thread!
Problem: The beer seems thick.
Possible solutions: High FG, dextrinous extract, under-attenuation.
Without a hydrometer reading, you don't know your FG. Thus, a crucial datum is lost. Say, for example, you also don't know what type/brand of extract you used, or what type of yeast you pitched. Now we have basically
no data to help you (those are the three biggest influencers of "thick" beer after the ferment appears to be finished).
In sum, I am glad to be of assistance. But I prefer to have at least
some data from which to work. If one deliberately chooses to avoid collecting data, asking for help is a bit...I dunno...hubristic. It's basically saying, "I have no idea what's going on. Here;
you figure it out
for me, 'cos I can't be bothered to help myself." Not saying you're doing that, but it happens every day at HBT.
Add to that that I've had it up to
here with "experienced brewers" still advising new brewers that they don't need a hydrometer, to watch the airlock, whatever. These people continue to promulgate the Prohibition Pilsner methodology. It's not "art".
I'll tell you something: I've trained myself in historical brewing. I have redacted recipes from as far back as the 14th century. I've also made detailed studies of historical brewing techniques and procedure. I can tell you from experience what mash liquor
looks like when it's the right temperature for mashing. I can judge conversion by taste. I can judge mash pH by the feel of the grain in the mash. I can hit volumes without measuring anything. In other words, I've got a whole raft of experience in both the alchemical and scientific sides of brewing. Maybe this will come as a surprise to you, but: As fun as historical brewing is, as soon as I can I run back to my modern brewery, to using my modern instruments,
because it makes the whole process so much simpler!
No hard feelings, okay?
Regards,
Bob
