science!

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.

backsweat

New Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Location
durham
Long post from newish member warning.

I think generally there are a couple of goals that homebrewers aim for: 1) when given a goal for style, flavor, abv, mouthfeel, whatever else you look for in a brew, to be able to hit it consistently and 2) to intimately understand the contribution of each ingredient and brewing practice, eg temp and efficiency etc. These two goals feed in to each other naturally, but something I've seen lacking in recipes and discussions is side-by-side comparison.

What I mean is that there is a wealth of experience related through descriptions of beers and their making, on this board and others, where a recipe is written up and a description of the taste and overall impression of how good the final result is, but something that would be really valuable to the interested novice would be a bunch of split batches or identical but-for recipes. It's my impression that this happens a lot with a fairly low profile, and indeed SMASH brews are really getting to this. To be honest I'd be really surprised if this hasn't been done to some extent by most brewers, homebrew or commercial scale.

I've read discussion here where people have mentioned making a 10-gallon batch and then splitting it to get a sense of what a new strain of yeast might offer, for example. But having just finished reading Brew Like A Monk I am really struck by how it seems that so many of the Belgian breweries have very, very simple ingredients lists, and all the complexity is added by the yeast when allowed to run from a fairly cool to high temp. Meanwhile there has been a long history of small-scale brewers trying to capture the ineffable somethings of the Trappist brewers with more complicated recipes.

My thinking is that homebrewers, doing fairly small and cheap batches compared to commercial brewers, have a lot of freedom to do these kinds of experiments cheaply. We have the opportunty to really pin down what each change in recipe formulation and brewing temp, duration, etc etc etc might actually be able to do to make a really distinctive brew. And further, with the HBT wiki we have a really good platform for everyone to describe experiments of this type. What I'm proposing is a section of the HBT wiki where people do side-by-side comparisons of brews with small changes, hopefully with fairly careful documentation of the relevant parameters along the way, and a description of what changes might result.

What I'm envisioning would look like a series of links on the descriptions of each malt, hop, etc describing recipes where, for example, someone cooks up something basic, and then either splits the batch in to two smaller ones and changes one thing (yeast or hops are particularly easy for split batches), or perhaps starts two brews on the same day with identical recipes with one small change. If the conditions for submission to the wiki were such that you had to also submit fermentation temperature, efficiency, recipe, and other important measurements to the description then we could potentially build toward a pretty comprehensive and fairly rigorous data set that could be a huge boon to brewers at novice and advanced hobbyist levels. I don't think it would take anything away from the more advanced brewers because 1) the pros probably already have something like this from experience and 2) the hobbyists will want to go through it all to experience it all firsthand anyway.

This all suffers from the issue that the end product is going to be described in the same relative terms as ever. What I usually tell people who ask what a beer is like is "It's good! You should try it," and that's probably never going to change since people's preference can't really be predicted in any quantifyable way. But given that limitation I think it could be a really fun kind of crowdsourcing project that encourages everyone to do what they wanted to do already. It will ultimately have to be a community effort, but some coordinated documentation with a standardized vocabulary could really be fun and helpful.

What are your thoughts?
 
that about sums it up

1659865.jpg
 
+1 as well.

Every recipe I made so far I used a different base malt, and everytime I make the yeast starter with I do a mini biab with 1# of the base malt I plan to use. It might help with getting the yeast acclimated to the type of sugar in the final wort, but the main reason I do so is to find out what each base malt tastes when pure. I did Maris Otter and 6-row so far. Next time I brew in 1.5-2 months it will be pilsner.
 
While that would be nice, in the end I think you really just have to brew a lot and drink a lot to understand the contributions from different ingredients. It all comes down to what you like. I brewed a lot of recipes from BCS but I stopped after I figured out what some ingredients do, and started formulating my own recipes. I pretty much brew the same styles of beer over and over, so I just tweak them over time. I'm getting close to being satisfied with a few.

However, it doesn't mean you'll love my beer more than any other. How many approaches are there to a simple American pale ale? Crystal, no crystal? Munich? Biscuit? Hop-foward, malt forward? Which type of hops? You'll have to figure those out for yourself. Joining a good brew club helps, because then you don't have to brew as much yourself to figure out what you like.

The best advice I can give is to do three things. Pick 1-5 styles of beer you like, and only brew those until you get bored. Pick one or two yeast strains to use, and use them until you know them inside and out, especially which flavors they produce at certain temps. And finally, brew a SMASH type beer every month to learn something. I just make an IPA with a different hop, because I like IPAs.
 
Well, I can understand your lust for knowledge and a want for a descriptive guide that lays it all out for you. But, there are just so many combinations of ingredients, yeast, ferm temps, mash temps, conditioning times, carbonation levels, etc that it just isn't feasible to make a complete scientific guide that covers every single possible variation of every style. That would be like trying to make a scientific guide for cooking. The possibilities are endless. You as a homebrewer are now tasked with that challenge. It's your responsibility to experiment with the process and come up with the beer that best suits your tastes. Besides, books can only take you so far. Experience is the best teacher.
 
well, i can understand your lust for knowledge and a want for a descriptive guide that lays it all out for you. But, there are just so many combinations of ingredients, yeast, ferm temps, mash temps, conditioning times, carbonation levels, etc that it just isn't feasible to make a complete scientific guide that covers every single possible variation of every style. That would be like trying to make a scientific guide for cooking. The possibilities are endless. You as a homebrewer are now tasked with that challenge. It's your responsibility to experiment with the process and come up with the beer that best suits your tastes. Besides, books can only take you so far. Experience is the best teacher.

+1
 
I want to get to the point where I know exactly what went into each beer from beginning to end so I can try to control the consistency.
Right now I am new to all of this. I am at the mercy of trying to hit temp targets while mashing, etc. and at the mercy of my closet for fermentation.
So now I just brew and learn until I can get my e-kettle and controlled fermentation cabinet built.
 
I too am a new brewer and find that I am like you trying to understand the science behind the brewing. I tend to reverse engineer things all the time, it's part of my job and has made its way to my brewing as well.

it would be nice to have a database of sorts but brewing is like making chili you can tweak a good chili recipe but won't know exactly what it tastes like till after you've made it.
 
I have seen "clone" recipes that I know to be quite different from the commercial recipe, yet they result in a beer so close that is can be uncanny.

So many variables, you just have to experiment and determine what works best for you. I find the internet to be both a blessing and a curse for new brewers. So many people read things online, search topics, etc. it can become a crutch. For the best results, you really have to experience it yourself. Put your own sense and experience into it. The science should be there to perfect the art, not the other way around.

In the end, all that matters is what hits the glass.
 
I clicked this forum thread because of it's title- SCIENCE! I'm glad I clicked it. I'm a new kid on the block here and in the world of home-brew and already know I'll probably never have the time or money to try everything I want to, but have lately been brewing half-batches for a number of 2.5 gallon PETE-1 containers I have, and though they aren't very efficient with time, they are with resources.(-1 for run on sentence). Especially when it comes to having 5 or 6 different brew styles in primaries at one time.

I'm a student at UC Davis and am taking the lower division Beer & Brewing class with the infamous, 'Pope of Foam', Charlie Bamforth; and let me just tell you I am inspired for life after just half a quarter in that dudes class. I have been around home brewing for a while now, as my dad is an avid brewmeister back home. When I was younger I "designed" a couple of brews for him (just picking the malts and hops and yeasts) and was always amazed at the wide range of outcomes between the simple changes.

I have a passion for science (Plant Genetics and Breeding Major) and look forward to messing around with different combinations of ingredients and times and temps, for the rest of my life. I'm sure sometime soon I'll find something I personally enjoy more than the rest and will incorporate those findings into my common practices, but am stoked to be able to keep fiddling around.
 
I support the concept proposed by the OP. I am now getting to a point where I can repeat the result from multiple batches. Because everybody has their own twist on a standard brewing process, and their own strengths and weaknesses in equipment, temp control etc, it is likely that you and I could come up with very different results when brewing the same recipie. Not sure how to factor those differences in a meaningful way when creating a common data set.
 
BBL_Brewer said:
Well, I can understand your lust for knowledge and a want for a descriptive guide that lays it all out for you. But, there are just so many combinations of ingredients, yeast, ferm temps, mash temps, conditioning times, carbonation levels, etc that it just isn't feasible to make a complete scientific guide that covers every single possible variation of every style. That would be like trying to make a scientific guide for cooking. The possibilities are endless. You as a homebrewer are now tasked with that challenge. It's your responsibility to experiment with the process and come up with the beer that best suits your tastes. Besides, books can only take you so far. Experience is the best teacher.

This.

There are more combinations of ingredients than you could ever make yourself. So, pick one aspect at a time that you can experiment with. I recently made 6 one gallon single hop pale ales. Each had the same hopping schedule but used a different hop.

One warning, once you start you won't want to stop. I've got about 20 more hop varieties I want to try!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top