Couple of questions

Starters:

I just started making starters because i am hearing that it does good things. I got the general measurments of (dont quote me, i dont have my cheat sheet in front of me) of 100 grams of DME to 1 Ltr water. Now i have only done 1 ltr startes. if i do a 2 ltr starter, do i have to put two vials of yeast in there?

Fermentation:

I see some folks saying they ferment for months! why is that? i was under the impression that once it is done, its done. does it really need to ferment for that long of a period? i am sure it dont hurt, but what does it do for you?

thanks folks
jake

Starters:

I just started making starters because i am hearing that it does good things. I got the general measurments of (dont quote me, i dont have my cheat sheet in front of me) of 100 grams of DME to 1 Ltr water. Now i have only done 1 ltr startes. if i do a 2 ltr starter, do i have to put two vials of yeast in there?

Click to expand...

Give this a listen-- http://thebrewingnetwork.com/shows/Brew-Strong/Brew-Strong-12-22-08-Yeast-Starters

Fermentation:

I see some folks saying they ferment for months! why is that? i was under the impression that once it is done, its done. does it really need to ferment for that long of a period? i am sure it dont hurt, but what does it do for you?

Click to expand...

You are right. Once it is done, it is done. In most cases this is 10-14 days. There are a few exceptions, but you can ferment >90% of the beers you brew in that time frame. There are some people on this forum who confuse aging reactions with fermentation reactions and think that because their RIS tasted better after 6 months that it was because of the yeast. Aging is different than fermentation. If you follow proper fermentation procedures by pitching the correct amount of healthy yeast, along with the proper amount of oxygen, you will find that most of your beers are done fermenting within 10 days. Contrary to popular myth, the yeast only need a day or two to clean up any fermentation by products, as long as they are not in excess due to poor fermentation procedures. Your yeast don't need 3-4 weeks to "clean up." Go talk to any professional brewer who has actually gone to school and studied the art and science of brewing.

http://www.yeastcalc.com/
play around with that calculator for starters to see how more wort will affect cell count. You can pitch one vial to a two liter starter.

As for a long fermentation I'm guessing you are probably referring to what people call secondary fermentation? This name is really poorly worded in the sense that it isn't a "second" fermentation. There should be no fermentation going on actually. It is more of a bulk aging period for the beer to mellow out and clear. Some beers, like bigger ABV beers or stouts or some other things, can really benefit from this additional aging but there is no fermentation going on. Unless of course you have some weird infection, then your in trouble.

jakehale said:

I see some folks saying they ferment for months! why is that? i was under the impression that once it is done, its done. does it really need to ferment for that long of a period? i am sure it dont hurt, but what does it do for you?

Click to expand...

I typically do 4 weeks in the primary for my 1.060-1.075 OG IPAs, with the last week dedicated to dryhopping.

These beers complete 95-97% of their fermentation in the first 3-7 days, however... the extra conditioning time helps the yeast to reabsorb the off-flavors they emitted in the first 3-7 days. So they eat sugar, nutrients, and oxygen and poop out CO2, alcohol, and off-flavors. A few weeks of additional conditioning time allows the yeast to eat the off flavors they initially pooped out, thus giving you a smoother beer with more quality of flavor. There are more than a few brewers out there who choose to ignore this advice, but it doesn't make the reality of it less true. They claim that if your yeast starter is healthy and your ferm temps. and procedures are sound, then no extra conditioning time is needed. Even if one always follows this logic, that doesn't mean that the yeast still do not initially emit off-flavors. I've compared different methods a hundred times and found that extended conditioning helps the beer for the better. You will still have a drinkable beer without it, but it will not measure up to the quality of one that was properly conditioned.

These beers complete 95-97% of their fermentation in the first 3-7 days, however... the extra conditioning time helps the yeast to reabsorb the off flavors they emitted in the first 3-7 days. So they eat sugar, nutrients, and oxygen and poop out CO2, alcohol, and off-flavors. A few weeks of additional conditioning time allows the yeast to eat the off flavors they initially pooped out, thus giving you a smoother beer with more quality of flavor.

Click to expand...

While this is true, it only takes a day or two at most for the yeast to reabsorb any fermentation by products as long as they were not created in excess. Certainly not weeks. If it took weeks, every brewpub in the country would go out of business. They turn out clean tasting beer in 10-14 days on average. Even IPAs with dry hopping.

That being said, I certainly champion the right for any brewer to let their beer sit if they feel that works best for them. I just don't want people to keep perpetuating common misconceptions like the thought that it takes weeks for the yeast to clean up.

MachineShopBrewing said:

While this is true, it only takes a day or two at most for the yeast to reabsorb any fermentation by products as long as they were not created in excess. Certainly not weeks. If it took weeks, every brewpub in the country would go out of business. They turn out clean tasting beer in 10-14 days on average. Even IPAs with dry hopping.

That being said, I certainly champion the right for any brewer to let their beer sit if they feel that works best for them. I just don't want people to keep perpetuating common misconceptions like the thought that it takes weeks for the yeast to clean up.

Click to expand...

I've compared different conditioning times, and lackthereof, for the past 3 years. And I beg to differ. It does not only take a day or two to fully clean up the beer. I can personally taste it and gauge the quality for myself. Have you given the particular conditioning method I spoke of a shot? Or have you just brewing like you always have been, putting out beers in 2 weeks total time and not changing anything because you were satisfied with your beers? I'm curious where you got that information about taking only 1 or 2 days. Because the benefits of yeast conditioning is not a misconception. I have read books on the topic too. Here is a great one with an entire chapter on yeast that recommends extended conditioning and explains why in thorough detail: http://books.google.com/books/about/Brewing.html?id=zV9bpyykNtMC

To get something straight... commercial brewing is not = to homebrewing. Brewing processes in a commercial entity are way more complex. There may also be methods/factors employed that aid in a speedier turnaround of a high quality product. Alternately, when running a business, timing is everything. You cannot afford to brew limited batches at the expense of more conditioning time when the product passes as "satisfactory".

To get something straight... commercial brewing is not = to homebrewing. Brewing processes in a commercial entity are way more complex. There may also be methods/factors employed that aid in a speedier turnaround of a high quality product.

Click to expand...

Brewing is brewing. The vessels are just bigger. Go talk to a professional brewer who is any good and they will tell you the same. My process is a smaller clone of how the professional brewery works. I use the same methods and processes employed by commercial brewers, and I have learned those processes by talking to actual brewers. Theories in a book are quite different than theories that are actually in practice. There are actually a few methods that professional brewers employ to turn around beer faster-

1. pitch the correct amount of yeast at the peak of health(the most important)
2. add pure O2 to 8-12 ppm
3. ferment at correct temperature for the yeast and beer they are making
4. filter or fine

That's pretty much all the tools in the toolbox. All of those tools can be used in homebrewing also.

It does not only take a day or two to fully clean up the beer. I can personally taste it and gauge the quality for myself.

Click to expand...

You are confusing yeast reactions with aging and gravity reactions. The difference you taste relates to yeast and fine particulate(tannins/polyphenols and protein/polyphenol complexes, etc..) falling out of solution, and normal aging reactions happening. That is what you are attributing to "cleaning up the beer". These things will still happen regardless if you had yeast present or not. The yeast uptake and metabolization of fermentation by products only takes a couple of days. If you still have fermentation by products after that, then you need to look at your fermentation practices to clean them up.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore about this so we'll just agree to disagree. It is obvious you are satisfied with your beers and have not strayed from your typical way of doing things for quite some time. That is fine, but I am not satisfied with mediocrity or thinking I've learned all there is to learn on a particular topic. My practices and brewing knowledge evolves.

Not to throw more fuel on the fire, but remember a comerical brewery, be it BMC or your local NANO has 2 goals for their beer in mind, largest audience and consistant flavor (I almost said quality).

To use an analogy, every time you go to McDonalds, you know exactly what a big mac is. Everytime you purchase a beer of style X, you expect to get that flavor. Comerical brewers go for what I call an 80% beer - meaning most will think it is drinkable, although not the best, but drinkable and are willing to buy it.

As home brewers, we brew for 1 (or maybe a few) and go for 95%+ beer, meaning the best we can make of that style as suited to our palette. We often do things to chase that last few % points. Be it full boils, dry hopping, long aging etc. And it suit each of us according to his or her taste. And frankly the only mechanism that seems to be important time.

Does it matter if it is yeast or gravity with time that makes the beer better after 4 more weeks? I think not, because I'm convinced the sanitation risk or racking is bigger than the autolysis(yeast eating dead yeast) risk. Personally I typically leave a beer for 3 to 4 week from start to bottling and never bother with a secondary unless I have an ingredient add (dry hop, spice, fruit, etc).

Autolysis takes several months upon months to occur. You should never encounter it in as little as 4-8 weeks.

From what I have read on autolysis, it takes longer than months to occur in a sealed beer container with modern yeasts, and it was more a problem 15+ years ago. This is why I fear racking a beer and sanitation more than autolysis. I've gone 8 weeks in a primary bucket before bottling and had no problems. (and none with carbonation either)

I'm not going to argue with you anymore about this so we'll just agree to disagree. It is obvious you are satisfied with your beers and have not strayed from your typical way of doing things for quite some time. That is fine, but I am not satisfied with mediocrity or thinking I've learned all there is to learn on a particular topic. My practices and brewing knowledge evolves.

Click to expand...

I hardly do things the way I do because I am satisfied with mediocrity. I do things the way I do because I have talked to head brewers and master brewers from many small and large breweries to formulate the best process for making the best quality beer. I think you should incorporate a discussion with someone who actually brews at a high level professionally into your learning regimen instead of just reading the homebrew dogma that is thrown around this forum on a daily basis. These people are the best at what they do and have risen through the ranks in a dog-eat-dog business. I take their knowledge and advice over what someone on some forum has to say.

All that said, I personally don't care what someone else's process is. If you feel that 3-4 weeks is what works best for you, then rock on. If you are bottling and don't want a bunch of sediment in your bottles, then sure, 3-4 weeks sitting in the fermentor would certainly help that. I tend to keg and fine my beers. I usually rack when I am at terminal gravity +2-3 days. This cycle is typically 10-14 days depending on yeast strain.

To use an analogy, every time you go to McDonalds, you know exactly what a big mac is. Everytime you purchase a beer of style X, you expect to get that flavor. Comerical brewers go for what I call an 80% beer - meaning most will think it is drinkable, although not the best, but drinkable and are willing to buy it.

As home brewers, we brew for 1 (or maybe a few) and go for 95%+ beer, meaning the best we can make of that style as suited to our palette. We often do things to chase that last few % points. Be it full boils, dry hopping, long aging etc. And it suit each of us according to his or her taste. And frankly the only mechanism that seems to be important time.

Click to expand...

Huh?

I am not sure what kind of breweries you have near you, but a brewery that puts out an 80% beer is not going to be around very long. Every professional brewer/brewery I have ever talked to is focused #1 on the quality of the beer.

As far as homebrew, 95% of homebrew is no where near the quality of most commercial beers. Commercial beer is made by professionals who brew beer every day for a living. These brewers are highly trained(most of them university trained with 4-6 year degrees on top of their brewing education) and stay up on the latest research, processes and equipment. Some of them have many, many years of experience making beer every day. Their livelihoods and family's future depend on them performing their job to the best of their ability. These brewers are doing what they love, and care a great deal about the quality of the beer they make. Millions of dollars are invested and on the line based on the quality of their beers. Commercial beer is made with the latest and best equipment that is specifically designed to brew beer. They have learned for years/decades with their house yeasts on how to handle them for optimum flavor and quality. Their yeast is always at the peak of health when going into a fermentation because they are always brewing and re pitching yeast. They actually do cell counts and tests to make sure their yeast is clean and healthy before committing it to a fermentation. These breweries have labs and quality control with actual scientific instruments and trained chemists to measure different compounds in their finished beer such as Dissolved oxygen, diacetyl, acetaldhyde, etc... All in the name of quality.

Now, contrast that with your average homebrewer. This person brews once a month, maybe. Reads most of their information they know from brewing forums and a few homebrew books/magazines that cater to the beginner brewer with dumbed down and simple information for the most people to comprehend. The average homebrewer is not trained in a hard science such as chemistry or microbiology as a pro brewer would be. The average homebrewer brews and ferments in re purposed items such as old beer kegs and plastic buckets. Few even have decent fermentation temperature control. Fewer are using anywhere near the right amount/healthy yeast on average as pros do. <1% have any kind of analytic equipment to do cell counts and vitality/viability tests. <1% could actually produce the same level of quality in the same beer twice in a row, let alone over and over like a pro brewer has to.


So, saying that homebrewers are brewing 95%+ quality beers, while your average craft brewer is brewing 80% quality beers is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. That's like saying some Joe Schmoe who plays hardcore paintball on the weekends and reads "Soldier of Fortune" magazine could take out a trained Navy Seal. It is completely asinine.

I think there's an issue of empiricism here, which of course is colored by personal preferences.

Both my personal, empirical experiences and the few BJCP contests I've entered tell me that 14-28 days grain-to-glass CAN produce excellent beers. The thing is, you have to center your process around that goal. Nail your mash regimen, temps, and water chemistry. Pitch big, healthy yeast starters, work your ferment temps, cold crash, etc.

If you can't or won't do these things, then I think you have to arrange your process according to more "traditional" Homebrew processes.

Not sure whether one is better than the other.

Both my personal, empirical experiences and the few BJCP contests I've entered tell me that 14-28 days grain-to-glass CAN produce excellent beers. The thing is, you have to center your process around that goal. Nail your mash regimen, temps, and water chemistry. Pitch big, healthy yeast starters, work your ferment temps, cold crash, etc.

Click to expand...

Right. Perfect your process and you don't need to let things sit to "condition".

Pretty much what I have been saying.

MachineShopBrewing said:

I hardly do things the way I do because I am satisfied with mediocrity. I do things the way I do because I have talked to head brewers and master brewers from many small and large breweries to formulate the best process for making the best quality beer. I think you should incorporate a discussion with someone who actually brews at a high level professionally into your learning regimen instead of just reading the homebrew dogma that is thrown around this forum on a daily basis. These people are the best at what they do and have risen through the ranks in a dog-eat-dog business.

Click to expand...

No one is throwing around what they have heard other than you. Your whole idealogy behind brewing better seems to be centered around what others think and what others have told you versus trials of actual experimentation and learning experiences. Listening to 10 minutes of what a doctor tells you about how you could improve your health does not make you an expert. So I am not going to try to convince someone who is so ignorant in their current practices that they might possibly be in denial about being wrong, or perhaps they are simply limiting themselves by not exploring all of their options. You still haven't admitted that you have ever even tried 4-5 weeks total fermentation and conditioning time as opposed to your typical 12-14 days of grain to glass. Sorry, but I don't put any faith in someone who doesn't see both sides of the coin and is adamant on what someone "told" them with absolutely no interest in experimentation or learning things for themselves. You will never grow that way. Your beers today will still be the same as they will 20 years from now... with no improvement. So good luck with that. I am done here.

MachineShopBrewing said:

I take their knowledge and advice over what someone on some forum has to say.

Click to expand...

P.S. - You are someone on this forum who is spewing brewing dogma you have heard elsewhere.

Uh,,,,, ok,,, thanks folks.....

Sensitive topic you raised (for some people). Hope you learned a little bit at least!

bobbrews said:

I am done here.

Click to expand...

Isn't this the second time on this one thread you've claimed to be done arguing? Bob, while you have cited a reference for your side of this argument, it is far from being a staple of the literature. At reasonable room temperatures, yeast will clean up off flavors in a couple of days in most cases, diacetyl rest being the canonical example.

I indeed have also experimented with this exact phenomenon, though I find IPA one of the worst styles to experiment in this manner with, as hop flavor and aroma can easily mask subtle yeast off-flavors. However, I've experimented extensively with Vienna lager and Scottish ale, both malt driven beers with yeast that ferment relatively slow that can be affected by yeast by-products like diacetyl, and I believe that off-flavors tend to be cleaned up in the normal final 2-3 days of active fermentation, not 3-4 weeks.

Hope your beer continues to evolve. Will you contradict yourself again and respond to this? Very clever.

jakehale said:

Starters:

I just started making starters because i am hearing that it does good things. I got the general measurments of (dont quote me, i dont have my cheat sheet in front of me) of 100 grams of DME to 1 Ltr water. Now i have only done 1 ltr startes. if i do a 2 ltr starter, do i have to put two vials of yeast in there?

thanks folks
jake

Click to expand...

Jake, I missed the two vials part of your question. The real answer is that it depends on how many yeast cells you need.

There seem to be two approaches: waking the yeast up, or increasing the cell count. If your beer's OG is less than about 1.050-1.060, one yeast vial/smack pack is usually sufficient. In those cases, I usually do a 500ml starter about 24-36 hours ahead of pitching time so that my yeast go into the wort already chomping away. If you make a bigger beer, you need more cells. In that case, either pitch 2 (or more--YeastCalc.com or mrmalty.com both provide reasonable calculators) in the way described above, or step up your starter sizes over a week or two ahead of time. For example, start with 500ml and let it ferment out, decant the beer, add 1L of fresh wort, let it ferment out, decant beer, add 2L of wort, ferment, etc. The websites above can give you specifics on stepped starters.

As an aside, you may wish to check out yeast washing so you can re-use your yeast from a beer you've made. Saves a LOT of money over time, and it means you almost always have enough yeast. It's essentially using a 5gal starter!

Hope this is useful.

EDIT: I thought your name looked familiar. You might post this on the BARF page or bring it up at the next meeting--Joey & Mike M. Are both experts at making starters!

Drew

You still haven't admitted that you have ever even tried 4-5 weeks total fermentation and conditioning time as opposed to your typical 12-14 days of grain to glass.

Click to expand...

I never said I don't condition my beer. What I said was you are confusing conditioning with fermentation(which is a typical misconception on these forums). Fermentation is done within 14 days normally. How long you condition the beer is up to you, but it is not a fermentation/yeast function.

There are some people on this forum who confuse aging reactions with fermentation reactions and think that because their RIS tasted better after 6 months that it was because of the yeast.

Click to expand...

I also leave my beer sit for a week or two after fermentation is done to let the flavors meld, yeast to drop brite, and excess protein/polyphenol complexes to fall out of solution. But this is done at cold temps in a keg. It is not a yeast function. You can speed up this process by using gelatin or polyclar if you want to also.

MachineShopBrewing said:

Huh?

ISo, saying that homebrewers are brewing 95%+ quality beers, while your average craft brewer is brewing 80% quality beers is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. That's like saying some Joe Schmoe who plays hardcore paintball on the weekends and reads "Soldier of Fortune" magazine could take out a trained Navy Seal. It is completely asinine.

Click to expand...

You missed my point. A commercial enterprise desires customers, not a good product. It gets customers by making a product that is good enough to get them. It appeals to as large a base as possible with other constraints (cost being the largest).

The homebrew by contrast has a very small base, usually 1 person (himself) although possibly larger (say up to 10 people - friends, BCJP judges, etc). So his goal is to make the bear that is 'best' for those people. So what is 95% appealing to me will be only about 25% to you. - I know I left that bit out last time, I appologize.

If I'm not making a beer that is a 95% for me, then I should give up and drink commercial. I don't expect that beer to be 95% for everybody, and frankly for the most part don't care because I made it for me, not for everybody. Remember, taste is highly personal.

The commercial brewer as he gets a beer that some think is better and better will end up alienating more or his customers. So while some think it is hitting a 90% perfect, others will think it has dropped to about 50%.

My main point was that again, a beer a homebrewer makes should be one that is to him almost perfect and over the years he will get better and better at making a beer he likes. A commercial brewer is interested in creating a beer today that tastes exactly like yesterdays beer so his customers aren't surprised. As a result, his beer on the perfection scale will suffer for all, but be satisfactory for more.

If you beleive commerical beers are better than what you make, why would you make your own?

You are saying that you are making beer you like to drink? That is fine. Taste is subjective.

You are making it sound however, that homebrew is better quality than commercial brew because they don't care about quality, only customers. Quality is an objective measure. That is completely different than whether or not you prefer the flavor. Commercial brewers care #1 about the quality of their beer. Without quality, they will have no customers. Any commercial brewer worth his or her salt could craft a beer that would be better quality than 95% of homebrew. Whether or not you like the flavor of it would be up to you.

If you beleive commerical beers are better than what you make, why would you make your own?

Click to expand...

I do believe commercial brew is better for the most part. Do you think a famous chef or baker could make a better plate of food or baked good better than you can at home? Of course they can. Does that stop you from cooking and baking? Nope. It's fun, that's why we do it. Every now and then we make something that rivals some of the better commercial beer we have had. When that happens, it is a special moment. And then, sometimes you just go out to eat from that famous chef....

Piratwolf

thanks for the info.

I have been in BARF for 3 years now,,, but I can never make the dang meetings.....
I want to get in there I KNOW there is a lot of knowledge.....

Just my 2 pennies here and since I am hung over take em or leave em

I agree that the big breweries are absolutely the best at what they do. I can go to TX and have a beer and it will taste exactly as the beer here in my home town. And I do not believe that as a home brewer I can replicate in either the cost or speed of manufacture that the big boys get with a quality beer like they produce.

I also believe that they produce the cheapest beer possible with the fastest turn around time that will appeal to the most people. Could they change their brewing and make a better quality beer? I think so but it would not make sense for them to do so because it would cost more money. They have to walk a fine line between product and cost of product when deciding quality.

All of the above of course does not address the effectiveness of leaving the beer on yeast for longer. I have read a few books and I believe that while the yeasts work may be done good enough for a commercial brewery there is a lot to be gained leaving the beer alone in a secondary to clarify simply because most home brewers do not have the ability to cold crash or filter the beer.

I tend to bottle at about 3 weeks and then after the beer is carbed I will cellar it at 40 degrees until I drink it. I also secondary after a week so I can harvest the yeast and put them to sleep in the fridge sooner. Since I am pretty much the only fool dumb enough to drink my beer I am going to have to say I get rave reviews for it

MachineShopBrewing said:

You are saying that you are making beer you like to drink? That is fine. Taste is subjective.

You are making it sound however, that homebrew is better quality than commercial brew .

Click to expand...

Better to that specific home brewer. Because as you said taste is subjective, as is quality.

MachineShopBrewing said:

I do believe commercial brew is better for the most part. Do you think a famous chef or baker could make a better plate of food or baked good better than you can at home? Of course they can. Does that stop you from cooking and baking? Nope. It's fun, that's why we do it. Every now and then we make something that rivals some of the better commercial beer we have had. When that happens, it is a special moment. And then, sometimes you just go out to eat from that famous chef....

Click to expand...

That is a false analogy. Beer is a mass produced product. Like food from McDonalds or even somewhere more upscale like Panera or Olive garden. And anyone is business knows his first goal is to make a profit. He cares about quality (subjective) and having a consistant flavor (in the case of beer). If Bud suddenly started produce a Lager kept the same label and that many craft drinkers thought was an improved flavor, they'd lose customers.

Even DogFish ale (or perhaps especially they and other Craft brewers) care only about attracting customers, which may mean decreasing the intensity of flavor so that non craft drinkers will be attracted to it.

Back to your comparision, you are taking an artist who makes single master peices and saying I can't paint as well, that is true. But if I want an original painting, I can afford to make one of my own. If I want a reproduction, I can afford one of those.

[/QUOTE]So, saying that homebrewers are brewing 95%+ quality beers, while your average craft brewer is brewing 80% quality beers is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. That's like saying some Joe Schmoe who plays hardcore paintball on the weekends and reads "Soldier of Fortune" magazine could take out a trained Navy Seal. It is completely asinine.[/QUOTE]

So, saying that homebrewers are brewing 95%+ quality beers, while your average craft brewer is brewing 80% quality beers is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. That's like saying some Joe Schmoe who plays hardcore paintball on the weekends and reads "Soldier of Fortune" magazine could take out a trained Navy Seal. It is completely asinine.

Click to expand...

I've never (again: never) had beer in a fermentation vessel for longer than 10-14 days and I've never had any off flavors in my beer. As said, aging is different than conditioning/aging. Bulk conditioning/aging can be done in the keg.

If you want to turn your beer around under the "mandatory 6 month" timeline sometimes suggested on the forums, read this thread: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f13/aging-beer-facts-myths-discussion-84005/

My general philosophy is that, with a few exceptions (necessity: i.e. lambics and sours, huge OG beers a la barleywine) more aging will not turn mediocre beer into great beer. There's a balance to be struck between the beneficial effects of conditioning and the time it takes to enjoy your product.

Even DogFish ale (or perhaps especially they and other Craft brewers) care only about attracting customers, which may mean decreasing the intensity of flavor so that non craft drinkers will be attracted to it.

Click to expand...

If you really believe this, then I'm sorry, you need to get out more and talk to some brewers and brewery owners. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Check out this thread https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f14/sam-calagiones-rant-293732/index24.html

And the rant Sam(Dogfish Head owner and founder) had a while back-

"It’s pretty depressing to frequently visit this site (He's talking about BA) and see the most negative threads among the most popular. This didn’t happen much ten years ago when craft beer had something like a 3 percent market share. Flash forward to today, and true indie craft beer now has a still-tiny but growing marketshare of just over 5 percent. Yet so many folks that post here still spend their time knocking down breweries that dare to grow. It’s like that old joke: “Nobody eats at that restaurant anymore, it’s too crowded.” Except the “restaurants” that people **** on here aren’t exactly juggernauts. In fact, aside from Boston Beer, none of them have anything even close to half of one percent marketshare. The more that retailers, distributors, and large industrial brewers consolidate the more fragile the current growth momentum of the craft segment becomes. The more often the Beer Advocate community becomes a soap box for outing breweries for daring to grow beyond its insider ranks the more it will be marginalized in the movement to support, promote, and protect independent ,American craft breweries.

It’s interesting how many posts that refer to Dogfish being over-rated include a caveat like “except for Palo…except for Immort…etc.” We all have different palettes which is why it’s a great thing that there are so many different beers. At Dogfish we’ve been focused on making “weird” beers since we opened and have taken our lumps for being stylistically indifferent since day one. I bet a lot of folks agree that beers like Punkin Ale (since 1995) , Immort Ale (wood aged smoked beer) since 1995, Chicory Stout (coffee stout) since 1995 , Raison D’être (Belgian brown) since 1996, , Indian Brown Ale (dark IPA) since 1997, and 90 Minute (DIPA) since 2000 don’t seem very weird anymore. That’s in large part because so many people who have been part of this community over the years championed them and helped us put them on the map.These beers, and all of our more recent releases like Palo Santo, Burton Baton, Bitches Brew continue to grow every year. We could have taken the easy way out and just sold the bejeezus out of 60 Minute to grow but we like to experiment and create and follow our own muse. Obviously there is an audience that appreciates this as we continue to grow. We put no more “hype” or “expert marketing” behind our best selling beers than we do our occasionals. We only advertise in a few beer magazines and my wife Mariah oversees all of our twitter/Facebook/dogfish.com stuff. We have mostly grown by just sharing our beer with people who are into it (at our pub, great beer bars, beer dinners, and fests) and let them decide for themselves if they like it. If they do we hope they tell their friends about. We hope a bunch of you that are going to EBF will stop by our booth and try some of the very unique new beers we are proudly bringing to market like Tweason’ale (a champagne-esque, gluten-free beer fermented with buckwheat honey and strawberries) and Noble Rot (a sort of saison brewed with Botrytis-infected Viognier Grape must). One of these beers is on the sweeter side and one is more sour. Knowing each of your palettes is unique you will probably prefer one over the other. That doesn’t mean the one you didn’t prefer sucked. And the breweries you don’t prefer but are growing don’t suck either. Respect Beer. The below was my favorite post thus far.

This thread is hilarious. Seriously, Bells, Founders, FFF, Surly, RR, DFH, Bruery, Avery, Cigar City, Mikkeller are all overrated? Since I’m from Ohio, I’ll pile on and add Great Lakes, Hoppin Frog, and Brew Kettle to the list. Your welcome.

Hopefully soon we will have every craft brewery in the US on the list."

Click to expand...

I don't mean to rehash the Sam rant thread, but if you really think that all breweries care about is attracting more customers by dumbing down their beers and not caring about quality(and you are wrong here too, quality is objective, not subjective) , then you are wrong and need to do a little more research before you form opinions.


And to expand on quality being objective and not subjective-

Just because you may or may not like the flavor of a beer due to a certain ingredient or yeast, or style, doesn't mean that the beer has poor quality. Beer quality can be quantified by measurement. Beer quality is talking about having a good brewing process, managing a proper fermentation to make a clean beer, making sure to have a high quality product going into the package, with low DO and no fermentation off flavors.

Sure, a beer of poor quality will also have bad flavor usually. But, that does not necessarily mean a beer of poor flavor(subjective to your taste) is of poor quality. You may like more caramel malt in your pale ale than I do, but you can still make a quality beer both ways. You may like one, and I may like the other. But, they are both quality beers.

My general philosophy is that, with a few exceptions (necessity: i.e. lambics and sours, huge OG beers a la barleywine) more aging will not turn mediocre beer into great beer. There's a balance to be struck between the beneficial effects of conditioning and the time it takes to enjoy your product.

Click to expand...

I think Kris England said it best-

(paraphrasing)

Sure, off flavors will smooth out over time. So do mountains. Make a clean beer to start.

Click to expand...

MachineShopBrewing said:

If you really believe this, then I'm sorry, you need to get out more and talk to some brewers and brewery owners. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Check out this thread https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f14/sam-calagiones-rant-293732/index24.html

And to expand on quality being objective and not subjective-

Just because you may or may not like the flavor of a beer due to a certain ingredient or yeast, or style, doesn't mean that the beer has poor quality. Beer quality can be quantified by measurement. Beer quality is talking about having a good brewing process, managing a proper fermentation to make a clean beer, making sure to have a high quality product going into the package, with low DO and no fermentation off flavors.

Sure, a beer of poor quality will also have bad flavor usually. But, that does not necessarily mean a beer of poor flavor(subjective to your taste) is of poor quality. You may like more caramel malt in your pale ale than I do, but you can still make a quality beer both ways. You may like one, and I may like the other. But, they are both quality beers.

Click to expand...

1. You and I are using quality differently. You are using it (as defined above ) to describ measurable things, such as off flavors, hoppiness, ABV etc. I am using it more associated with taste. Yes DF and other craft brewers make damn good beer, for their market.

2. I read over all my posts, every time I made an association comparring desirablity (subjective and related to taste) to the taster. While Sam C. and 95% of HBT can brew better quality (as you've defined it) than I, it probably won't suit my pallette - something you noted above about taste.

3. And while on taste, Sam C. can make a beer I like, but by the time he has made it, his customer base for that will be so small, that there is no way DF can sell it. Frankly I know Sam C is better brew than I for the reason he can craft a recipe, but just because he can design a flavorful recipe doesn't mean that he can sell it. Never forget that a business is about selling product, not about anyother goal except as how that leads to selling product.

There was a BYO magazine article (online available) where some guys test marketed their craft beer and nobody liked it except the brewers who started as homebrewers. The flavor was 'to strong.' Which makes sense since their testers were bud light drinkers. My point with this story is that what a homebrewer likes is often not sellable wide enough for he craft maker to make it profitably. What a given brewmaster at a craft location does for personal consumption is not something that usually reaches the bottle I buy in the store.

We will just have to disagree.
/end thread jack(for me atleast)

I'll end with this-

And while on taste, Sam C. can make a beer I like, but by the time he has made it, his customer base for that will be so small, that there is no way DF can sell it.

Click to expand...

There was a BYO magazine article (online available) where some guys test marketed their craft beer and nobody liked it except the brewers who started as homebrewers. The flavor was 'to strong.' Which makes sense since their testers were bud light drinkers. My point with this story is that what a homebrewer likes is often not sellable wide enough for he craft maker to make it profitably. What a given brewmaster at a craft location does for personal consumption is not something that usually reaches the bottle I buy in the store.

Click to expand...

The last part is not true. Almost all craft brewers will tell you that they brew the beers they like to drink. Why else would you start a brewery other than to brew the kinds of beers you like? I would venture to say that >90% of craft brewers were homebrewers to start. And the BYO article can just get thrown out. That is horrible control over a taste panel if the bulk of the panelists don't even like craft beer. What did they think was going to happen. That is not a cross section of the craft beer market.

And to the first line, you must be brewing some pretty wacky stuff if you think no one else would like it. That is fine, but you underestimate the craft beer market. Like Sam said, they pushed the envelope to create some of their beers and that brought them success. His entire rant basically disputes exactly what you have been advocating on this thread.


Anyway, cheers. I wasn't really trying to be a dick about it so I hope you don't take it that way. I like good discussion and disagreement. Otherwise its just everyone patting each other on the back, and where is the fun in that?

Anyway, cheers. I wasn't really trying to be a dick about it so I hope you don't take it that way. I like good discussion and disagreement. Otherwise its just everyone patting each other on the back, and where is the fun in that?

Click to expand...

Right on:rockin: