The ever changing opinions of proper techniques in brewing

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
A brilliant post. Clearly I don't read enough on the forum as the following are new news to me:

1. (Original recommendation) Don't squeeze the grain bag, it will extract tannins. (Modern day recommendation) It doesn't make any difference at all. Many people doing steeping or BIAB squeeze the living Jesus out of their bags with no ill effects.
Rev.
I've never done BIAB but I have put a paint strainer in my fermenting bucket and dumped the contents of the boil kettle into bucket and then lifted out the paint strainer (effectively trying to get as much wort out of the kettle as possible).

4. (Original recommendation) Decoction mashing is necessary for a true German beer taste. (Modern day recommendation) So and so has done extensive tests and finds no difference in taste therefore decocting is not necessary and a waste of time.
Rev.
Triple decoctions suck. Are you telling me now that it was a wasted effort!?

6. (Original recommendation) As according to the bottle label it says to use one tablet of Whirlfloc at 15 minutes near the end of boil. (Modern day recommendation) It's been written online that people have spoken with the actual manufacturer and they say one tablet is good for up to 12 gallons so only half a tablet is needed and it's most effective at the last 5 minutes of the boil.
Rev.
I forgot about using it at 5 minute rather 15. Thanks for the reminder.

9. (Original recommendation) After adding your sparge water allow ten minutes for the grain bed to set. (Modern day recommendation) Don't waste the time, vorlaufing sets the grain bed so start vorlaufing immediately.
Rev.
This seems kind of intuitive but I still (used) to wait.

Areas of interest for me coming out of this thread:
-Boil time lengths (what's the impact of 60 vs 120 minute boils)
-Mashing time length (can I cut this time down from 60 min? I don't have an iodine kit but I think I've read you can start sparging as soon as your wort becomes clear which I assume would almost always be less then 60 minutes.)
 
@whalewang - thank you for your positive comment on the thread! In regard to your decoction question - no not at all am I saying it's pointless, I was referencing a number of online posts I've read where people have done tests and have said they don't see a difference. Speaking on a scientific standpoint I can't see how boiling grains wouldn't make any difference but that is the point of this thread :)


Rev.
 
Speaking on a scientific standpoint I can't see how boiling grains wouldn't make any difference but that is the point of this thread :)


Rev.

Just wondering how what you see (in this particular example if you would like) is scientific. Please let me know.
 
Just wondering how what you see (in this particular example if you would like) is scientific. Please let me know.

I never said I "see" anything in regard to this topic as scientific, again... hence the whole point of this thread. If everything in brewing were 100% scientific the methods and opinions wouldn't be changing so wildly. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. All I can say is from having done several double decoction hefeweizens I've noticed a definite increase in efficiency and also a better tasting beer. The "better tasting" part I can describe is slightly fuller/maltier/warmer tasting beer.


Rev.
 
I never said I "see" anything in regard to this topic as scientific, again... hence the whole point of this thread. If everything in brewing were 100% scientific the methods and opinions wouldn't be changing so wildly. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. All I can say is from having done several double decoction hefeweizens I've noticed a definite increase in efficiency and also a better tasting beer. The "better tasting" part I can describe is slightly fuller/maltier/warmer tasting beer.


Rev.

Well, if you really want to know what I'm getting at it is this. You're hitting on the 'wild changes' of the last thirty years that is imparted by amateurs within the hobby community.

But I would be more careful with mixing that with a vigorous method spanning a tradition of centuries. There's a reason for these methods, even if a home brewer cannot scientifically validate it after a couple of trials.
 
I never said I "see" anything in regard to this topic as scientific, again... hence the whole point of this thread. If everything in brewing were 100% scientific the methods and opinions wouldn't be changing so wildly. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. All I can say is from having done several double decoction hefeweizens I've noticed a definite increase in efficiency and also a better tasting beer. The "better tasting" part I can describe is slightly fuller/maltier/warmer tasting beer.


Rev.

I feel as though if we did apply scientific rigor to our processes, things actually would change faster because we'd have more to base our opinions on than we currently do.

I admit I was a bit confused by the way you used the phrase 'scientific standpoint', but kinda just brushed it off.
 
By scientific standpoint I mean if one double decocts there would be physical differences between that beer and one that is not decocted. People say decoction creates melanoidins for example. So, scientifically there should be some form of difference no? And if so then it's confusing to see a number of people do compares and not tell any difference. That's what I was getting at using the term scientific standpoint - meaning the physical changes or differences that would be present in a decocted vs non decocted beer.


Rev.
 
I think what iambeer is saying is that several people on a message board doing comparisons of decocted vs. non-decocted beers and claiming they can't tell a difference doesn't necessarily qualify as a scientifically rigorous study. It could, maybe...but you have no information on how well-controlled their comparisons were (i.e. rigorous control of variables), if they even know how to do the decoction correctly, and if their palates are sensitive enough to discern any differences that did arise, amongst a number of other uncertainties.

Its just important to draw a distinction between the scientific peer review process of rigorous, well-characterized experiments and the comparisons that tend to be discussed on a message board such as this, which tend to be (but are not always) more anecdotal than scientifically rigorous. I'm not taking anything away from this board, because it is a wonderful source of information, you just have to personally gauge how much confidence to put in certain statements/conclusions/etc. based on the fact that it is what it is - a public forum on the internet where anyone can discuss their experience with homebrewing.
 
I think what iambeer is saying is that several people on a message board doing comparisons of decocted vs. non-decocted beers and claiming they can't tell a difference doesn't necessarily qualify as a scientifically rigorous study.

I never said it was scientific ;) I said there has to be some form of difference scientifically due to the different process and treatment of the grains/mash in a decocted beer vs. a single infusion. Though, you then have those that say they can't tell any difference. That's all, nothing more nothing less.


Rev.
 
By scientific standpoint I mean if one double decocts there would be physical differences between that beer and one that is not decocted. People say decoction creates melanoidins for example. So, scientifically there should be some form of difference no? And if so then it's confusing to see a number of people do compares and not tell any difference. That's what I was getting at using the term scientific standpoint - meaning the physical changes or differences that would be present in a decocted vs non decocted beer.


Rev.

Scientifically, you would quantify the difference, not assume that it's true. You always start with a null hypothesis.
 
...and even if 'scientifically' (or maybe more correctly, analytically) you can detect a difference chemically - that may not equate with being able to detect a difference sensorially. And you may be able to detect a difference where I may not - we all have differing abilities regarding taste & smell.
 
The best thing to do is to take information, ANY INFORMATION, in and try it for yourself.

http://gotgame.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/applause.gif

applause.gif
 
See, here's one to correct right now...caramelization doesn't happen until 360F and you'll never hit that in a kettle full of wort.

I'd love to see more analytical information about this - but google didn't turn up much more than forum discussions.

There is typically some color effect of a longer boil based on contact with the surface that the burner has direct contact with (I suspect from maillard vs. caramelization) - which is generally the reason to turn off the burner when adding liquid extract I believe.
 
I'd love to see more analytical information about this - but google didn't turn up much more than forum discussions.

There is typically some color effect of a longer boil based on contact with the surface that the burner has direct contact with (I suspect from maillard vs. caramelization) - which is generally the reason to turn off the burner when adding liquid extract I believe.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the issue with extract is that it's not completely in solution, so you're actually scalding solid/not quite in solution material. In a 100% water solution there shouldn't be caramelization (MAYBE as you said there's some at the bottom of the kettle), but in a syrup/heated solid you'll definitely get some sort of caramelization/maillard reactions.
 
Keep in mind that melanoidins are a color, not a flavor.

Yes, but those melanoidins generally occur as a result of the maillard reaction, and I think it's safe to suggest where you find a change in colour you're probably also likely to find a change in flavour. The degree of change may be very subtle, but still.
 
Yes, but those melanoidins generally occur as a result of the maillard reaction, and I think it's safe to suggest where you find a change in colour you're probably also likely to find a change in flavour. The degree of change may be very subtle, but still.

I pretty much agree with you, but I wanted to point out that it's not the melanoidins themselves that create flavor. Most homebrewers don't realize that.
 
Anti -litical establishmentarianism: If Palmer ever wrote it, Do it!



If you try something that takes some time and cannot tell the difference, then do not do it unless you think it makes your process better.



Home brewing reminds me of what we said the USAF:

1. Measure with a micromometer.
2. Mark with a grease pencil.
3. Cut with an ax.

I had a Chemistry minor and likely there are changes that could be detected in different procedures. It may not however be detectable on YOUR palette.

I remember years ago National Geo had a smell test in one of the issues. My son and I smelled candy, SWMBO said it smelled like urine.
 
One big thing I learned over my limited brewing time that contradicted the standard brewing view was that you don't need to chill your wort to a pitchable temp as quickly as possible. From my initial readings and talking to home brew employees they stressed the importance of chilling and how important wort chillers were in the process. From what I've read people in Australia have been doing the no chill method for years so I gave it a shot on my last 4 batches and must say I cannot tell a difference in the outcome!
 
One big thing I learned over my limited brewing time that contradicted the standard brewing view was that you don't need to chill your wort to a pitchable temp as quickly as possible. From my initial readings and talking to home brew employees they stressed the importance of chilling and how important wort chillers were in the process. From what I've read people in Australia have been doing the no chill method for years so I gave it a shot on my last 4 batches and must say I cannot tell a difference in the outcome!

The only real difference is the time it takes to get the wort to a pitchable temperature. All things being equal there is no difference.
 
The other main difference is that you increase your chances of wild yeast and/or bacteria infecting your wort before you pitch your desired yeast. This can be avoided with good sanitation practices and making sure your wort is covered and isolated correctly, but it is still an increased risk.
 
Oh, and another difference would arise if you're trying to get the most out of your late addition hops. The longer that wort stays at the high temps, the more aromatics are being driven off from your late addition hops (and your earlier addition hops are adding slightly more bitterness). This can be compensated for, to a certain extent by dry-hopping and by calculating correctly for your earlier additions, but there certainly should be a difference between the two methods.
 
Oh, and another difference would arise if you're trying to get the most out of your late addition hops. The longer that wort stays at the high temps, the more aromatics are being driven off from your late addition hops (and your earlier addition hops are adding slightly more bitterness). This can be compensated for, to a certain extent by dry-hopping and by calculating correctly for your earlier additions, but there certainly should be a difference between the two methods.

I do adjust my hops but have read a lot of people don't and swear it doesnt' make much if any of a difference. I am also reading about first wort hops and wanna give that a shot.

I sanatize my kegs, purge with c02, then store the wort in there for a few days to a week or so until ready to pitch. I've heard of people letting the wort sit for months before pitching a yeast.
 
I do adjust my hops but have read a lot of people don't and swear it doesnt' make much if any of a difference. I am also reading about first wort hops and wanna give that a shot.

Again, you have to know how to judge these types of statements made on a message board. My guess is that when many (but not all) people on here say they "can't tell a difference" between two methods, they're not talking about side-by-side comparisons where they only changed one variable (i.e. brewing one beer, and doing split batch fermentation). They're really talking more generally about brewing the same beer different times and changing their process (i.e. chill vs. no-chill) and nothing jumping out at them when they taste the beer this time around versus last time. If they're tasting the current beer a month after they tasted the previous beer where the process was different and relying on memory to draw the conclusion that there's "no difference", then that's not a reliable comparison.

I sanatize my kegs, purge with c02, then store the wort in there for a few days to a week or so until ready to pitch. I've heard of people letting the wort sit for months before pitching a yeast.

Why in god's name would you let the wort sit for months before pitching yeast? Unless you're doing a spontaneous fermentation, in which case hopefully something major should (hopefully) be happening within a few days. I guess I don't really see the difficulty in using a wort chiller (or some method of chilling wort within say at least a few hours). Its one of the least annoying things I can think of in the whole brewing process. But if it works for you, go for it.
 
Again, you have to know how to judge these types of statements made on a message board. My guess is that when many (but not all) people on here say they "can't tell a difference" between two methods, they're not talking about side-by-side comparisons where they only changed one variable (i.e. brewing one beer, and doing split batch fermentation). They're really talking more generally about brewing the same beer different times and changing their process (i.e. chill vs. no-chill) and nothing jumping out at them when they taste the beer this time around versus last time. If they're tasting the current beer a month after they tasted the previous beer where the process was different and relying on memory to draw the conclusion that there's "no difference", then that's not a reliable comparison.

I'm sure that is a good bit of it...I"m not saying I buy it's exactly the same and that's why I do alter my hop schedule.

Why in god's name would you let the wort sit for months before pitching yeast? Unless you're doing a spontaneous fermentation, in which case hopefully something major should (hopefully) be happening within a few days. I guess I don't really see the difficulty in using a wort chiller (or some method of chilling wort within say at least a few hours). Its one of the least annoying things I can think of in the whole brewing process. But if it works for you, go for it.

I think the point is people are saying the wort can stay good for months at a time if you use sanitary practices. I would guess/assume most people pitch within a few days when it has cooled. I do it for the sole reason that it saves me time/money brewing beer. I didn't have to buy a wort chiller or spend an hour+ chilling in my sink. I rack right from the brew pot to a keg and seal it up for a day or two. My main point was some think/thought chilling the wort right away is a must do...no chill is just another option for whatever reason you'd want to use it.
 
I do it for the sole reason that it saves me time/money brewing beer.

Does it really? I chill my wort down in average NY/NJ fall weather within 11-13 minutes. In the winter I chill it down in about 8 minutes. After that I can aerate, pitch my yeast, and off it goes. Are you somehow fermenting in the keg or are you just using it to hold the wort sealed? Because if it's just a holding vessle then it also has to be washed as well and so does the tubing you'd be using to transfer out of the keg to the fermenter. That doesn't sound like much if any time saved IMO.


Rev.
 
Does it really? I chill my wort down in average NY/NJ fall weather within 11-13 minutes. In the winter I chill it down in about 8 minutes. After that I can aerate, pitch my yeast, and off it goes. Are you somehow fermenting in the keg or are you just using it to hold the wort sealed? Because if it's just a holding vessle then it also has to be washed as well and so does the tubing you'd be using to transfer out of the keg to the fermenter. That doesn't sound like much if any time saved IMO.

Rev.

I don't have a wort chiller and after spending thousands on my last hobby(salt water reef tank) I'm trying to keep this one more reasonable :) I'm sure after I purchase all the other equipment I want and build a keezer etc etc I'll get a wort chiller at some point. When I brew 2.5g batches I cool in my kitchen sink with ice but even that takes an hour+ to chill.

I use the keg as a holding vessel and it probably doens't take much longer to wash/sanatize than a wort chiller?
 
If you get a "keezer" (Gawd, I hate that word) before you get a wort chiiler, you need to re-examine your priorities IMO. A chiller will very likely improve the quality of your beer. Isn't that more important?
 
Lets not forget that if you are transferring into a glass carboy, chilling down is a must! Learned that the hard way w/ our first batch - thought I could 'trickle' the wort into the carboy w/o problems, only to hear a sickening 'crack' after about a gallon had transferred. So - there are valid reasons to chill, depending on processes. We now use a 25' coil in an icewater bath as a pre-chiller, and then a 50 ft coil in the boil pot, and we get our wort down to pitching temps in about 10 minutes, give or take a bit.
 
...and you can make your own chiller (we did) with less than $50 or so of copper coil from Home Depot...
 
If you get a "keezer" (Gawd, I hate that word) before you get a wort chiiler, you need to re-examine your priorities IMO. A chiller will very likely improve the quality of your beer. Isn't that more important?

But that's my point, one theory has always been you need to cool your wort ASAP to avoid infections and improve quality etc etc. That thought does not hold true. Check out this great thread on no-chill brewing.
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f13/exploring-no-chill-brewing-117111/

I did a kolsch batch, granted it was only one experiment, the standard brewing/cooling method and then again the no chill adjusted hop schedule and could tell no difference. I did save several bottles of the first batch to compare directly side by side with the no chill version and althought I'm no beer judge I couldn't tell a difference. Maybe it's becasue it's not a real hoppy beer, maybe my taste buds are off but to me they were exactly the same.
 
Rev2010 said:
Does it really? I chill my wort down in average NY/NJ fall weather within 11-13 minutes. In the winter I chill it down in about 8 minutes. After that I can aerate, pitch my yeast, and off it goes. Are you somehow fermenting in the keg or are you just using it to hold the wort sealed? Because if it's just a holding vessle then it also has to be washed as well and so does the tubing you'd be using to transfer out of the keg to the fermenter. That doesn't sound like much if any time saved IMO.

Rev.

What sort of mythical underground glacier water are you using! Chilling takes me at least 30 mins and that's with me semi-actively stirring. Easily 45-60 mins is probably more typical. I don't have a pre-chiller though.

No chill is intriguing. I just haven't had the push to try it yet. I do worry about having to alter my hop schedules.
 
I did a kolsch batch, granted it was only one experiment, the standard brewing/cooling method and then again the no chill adjusted hop schedule and could tell no difference.

How did you do one the standard cooling method without a wort chiller? If you're talking about an ice bath, to which you said takes you an hours time, that is not to be considered rapid cooling of the wort. Most of what I've read says you will get a lot less chill haze the faster you chill the wort. Could be why you didn't see much of a difference?


Rev.
 
What sort of mythical underground glacier water are you using! Chilling takes me at least 30 mins and that's with me semi-actively stirring. Easily 45-60 mins is probably more typical. I don't have a pre-chiller though.

No chill is intriguing. I just haven't had the push to try it yet. I do worry about having to alter my hop schedules.

I used to be at 30 - 45 minutes until I started using a pre-chiller. Now, I can usually get to pitching temps within 15 - 20 minutes for 10 - 11 gallons.
 
What sort of mythical underground glacier water are you using!

It's water from deep within a Unicorn cave. Lol, I just use a single 25' copper wort chiller bought from Northern Brewer. I hook it up to the garden hose outside in my back yard, which is also where I boil on a Blichmann burner. I open up the garden hose faucet all the way. Once the wort gets between 120-140 I start stirring the wort with the chiller to circulate it and cool it faster. I do also gently move the chiller in a circle to circulate the wort when it's hot but I do it very gently just to be cautious, hotside aeration myth vs. reality or not.

As noted, when the ground water is cold it chills very very fast. Btw, I've seen many others post with the same chill times as I.


Rev.
 
How did you do one the standard cooling method without a wort chiller? If you're talking about an ice bath, to which you said takes you an hours time, that is not to be considered rapid cooling of the wort. Most of what I've read says you will get a lot less chill haze the faster you chill the wort. Could be why you didn't see much of a difference?


Rev.

It was a 2.5G batch that I cooled in the sink with an ice bath. It probably does take 45-60 minutes until I pitch the yeast but I get a cold break pretty quickly as it drops from boiling decently fast, just takes a while to finish chilling. I by no means consider myself and expert, that could be part of the reason why I couldn't tell which was which, but even if I got chill haze that wouldn't have an impact on taste?
 
around here, this summer, you were lucky if the groundwater was under 80 degrees...I'm sure Australia is worse. And some places have water restrictions so running 50 gallons down the driveway would be really frowned upon.
 
around here, this summer, you were lucky if the groundwater was under 80 degrees...I'm sure Australia is worse. And some places have water restrictions so running 50 gallons down the driveway would be really frowned upon.

The ground water in Jersey where I live during the summer is typically around 75-80 as well, one of the other reasons I stop brewing late spring and summer.


Rev.
 
Back
Top