The ever changing opinions of proper techniques in brewing

bobbrewedit said:

Its easier for a new guy to read a book and trust that book, than to come on a site like this where any Tom Dick or Harry can post some lame comment and pass it off as fact. To me, the books and articles form a foundation, something you can at least partialy trust, even if it's not always fact and is later retracted.

Click to expand...

But most of the time if the information is wrong or out of line, there is INSTANT feedback. Bad information doesn't last long on here. As opposed to a book, where you don't KNOW you got bad information. Just because it's in a book, doesn't mean it's correct. Just that it's in a book.

If there is a lame comment on here, you can bet the next comment will be from someone with more experience setting the issue straight.

A book is oneway.....

A book is a snapshot of the author's body of knowlege and the "common wisdom" at the time the author wrote the book, which may mean 3 years before it was even published. Papazian's book is 30+ years old. The basic knowlege is good, but brewing science and experience has progressed to where some things an author believes or says at that time may no-longer be valid...even to the author.

John Palmer has changed many ideas since the online version of the book went up several years ago.

Most of the time when someone "revises" a book they don't necessarilly "re-write" the entire thing...and unless they annotated the changes, often all a "revised" edition has to make it up to date is a new introduction, and maybe the addition or removal of some things. But Rarely is a revision in a book a serious comb through of the entire book.

This is an ever evolving hobby, and information and ideas change. And now with places like this with a huuge amount of dedicated and serious brewers, as well as all the podcasts online, you will find the most state of the art brewing info.

Papazain is a good example. as wonderful as it is, was written 30 years ago...and a lot of "science" or "common wisdom" that he as an author tapped into has evolved....all authors face this issue with their work.

Charlie Papazian said it But he might not necessarily say it now....see the difference?

His basic info is timeless....how to brew beer, figure out recipes, etc...but some of the info is just a reflection of the "opinions," or prevailing wisdom of the times, and may not even reflect his current beliefs...There's a podcast with Papazian from a year or so ago, where he talks about just having started using rice hulls in his mash ton...so if he doesn't update the book again, or write a new one, unless you've heard the podcast or read it on here, you won't KNOW about it.

And then WE peer review that info as well.

Revvy said:

Wrong. ...
But the point is, all these things have become more common and more shared and understood in the last 20 years. But they existed.

Click to expand...

Sure, whatever, they existed. My point was americas didn't BIAB, batch sparge, or measure mash pH in the early 90s because it wasn't in the books and we had no intarweb. If you can point to a BYO or zymurgy article or popular brewing book from the early 90s discussing BIAB, batch sparging, huge starters, and the importance of mash pH then I'll gladly retract my "wrong" comments.

Revvy said:

But most of the time if the information is wrong or out of line, there is INSTANT feedback. Bad information doesn't last long on here. As opposed to a book, where you don't KNOW you got bad information. Just because it's in a book, doesn't mean it's correct. Just that it's in a book.

If there is a lame comment on here, you can bet the next comment will be from someone with more experience setting the issue straight.

A book is oneway.....

And then WE peer review that info as well.

Click to expand...

Very good point.

You know what I've noticed most about the "old info" as opposed to the "new info" is that most of the changes involve reducing time/effort/equipment...good for us!

I buy into the idea that a lot of the older information was started due to inferior ingredients as well as concepts being taken from other industries, such as wine making (secondaries).

SpeedYellow said:

Sure, whatever, they existed. My point was americas didn't BIAB, batch sparge, or measure mash pH in the early 90s because it wasn't in the books and we had no intarweb. If you can point to a BYO or zymurgy article or popular brewing book from the early 90s discussing BIAB, batch sparging, and the importance of mash pH then I'll gladly retract my "wrong" comments.

Click to expand...

You said they didn't exist...they DID exist, WE just didn't know about them. THAT was the point of everything I've written. That all that information that was all around us, we didn't know about it. YOU implied that that stuff didn't exist at all.

Here's what you said;

SpeedYellow said:

Good list, but when I started brewing 20 yrs ago, some of those concepts weren't even invented yet. BIAB? Batch sparging? Mash pH? All unknown. LOL.

Click to expand...

How can you deny that you didn't say that???

That's like saying that apples fell upward until Isaac Newton invented gravity.....

The Australians WERE doing BIAB 30 years or more ago. People WERE batch sparging when they partigyled hundreds of years ago, they just may never have called it that. The German's where writing about mash PH a LONG time ago in their brewing trade journals. They were understanding that in the 1800's in Germany when they were throwing minerals in their water.

Those are historical facts. The point is in the last 20 years, especially in the last few years with the internet we now about things that have existed but we have not heard of them. They were UNKNOWN to US, but they sure as hell were known to those people doing it.

This is a great thread. I would love to see links to threads & articles in order to backup the new info.

And I do believe, but could be wrong, an understanding of mash ph is a few hundred years old as well. As long as they've understood what PH is, they've applied it to brew....It's just something relatively more recent to the HOBBY, once cheap PH strips and cheap meters became more readily available.

Click to expand...

Thanks to those cheap pH meters I now check my mash on nearly every batch because once I had the meter it became so easy to tell what effect my water had on the mash and how much acid I needed to bring the mash near the preferred range. Palmer wrote that the acidity of the grains would usually bring the mash pH to where it should be but my water supply never heard of him.

If there is a lame comment on here, you can bet the next comment will be from someone with more experience setting the issue straight.

Click to expand...

I've had this happen to me as I try to understand what happens and apply what I have read. I make a misstatement and usually within the hour someone has called me to task and explains that what I said isn't true and has proof backing them up.

BulldogBrewer said:

This is a great thread. I would love to see links to threads & articles in order to backup the new info.

Click to expand...

They're on here, hundreds of thousands of times. Pick one of those topics and look for the threads on it. NONE of those things that are "challenged conventional wisdom" are missing a ton of threads about it, and pretty much ALL of them are going to have the same citations or articles you're looking for in there. Usually by me.

Revvy said:

They're on here, hundreds of thousands of times. Pick one of those topics and look for the threads on it. NONE of those things that are "challenged conventional wisdom" are missing a ton of threads about it, and pretty much ALL of them are going to have the same citations or articles you're looking for in there. Usually by me.

Click to expand...

Agreed. However, the search on the site can turn up results fairly inconsistently given different search terms.

With links, this could be a great resource for everyone as a sticky or part of the wiki.

BulldogBrewer said:

Agreed. However, the search on the site can turn up results fairly inconsistently given different search terms.

With links, this could be a great resource for everyone as a sticky or part of the wiki.

Click to expand...

Honestly you don't even have to search for threads on these topics. Pick whatever section of the forum and look for the 5-10 threads on that topic every day. Almost all the topics are active threads multiple times on any given day. And they're going to have the same information or links in them.

I've found that Google is a much better companion for a new brewer than any 20+ year old publication, even if it's "updated." Coming from a programming background, I'd usually Google "programming language" +"current problem" to learn 90% of what I know about coding. Same thing applies to home brewing today: "home brew" +"current problem". Google usually returns HBT with dozens upon dozens of threads, all packed with the best wisdom I've seen anywhere.

Thanks to all the advanced brewers on here for the contributions they've made over the years, us newbies really appreciate it.

BulldogBrewer said:

Agreed. However, the search on the site can turn up results fairly inconsistently given different search terms.

With links, this could be a great resource for everyone as a sticky or part of the wiki.

Click to expand...

I was going to post initially that I would not be posting any links with the explicit reason that I simply don't have time to dig them all up and also because most people here have come across the same opinions/rebuttals many times already.

It extends past needing solid links anyhow - let's take tannin extraction. People on here quote all the time not to sparge by raising the grain temp higher than 170. But then what about Decoctions where they boil grains for up to 30 minutes, maybe more in some circumstances and often several times! I've had higher efficiency as a result of decocting but never any noticeable tannin effects. So what is right, temps over 170 lead to tannin extraction and decocting will lead to tannins or centuries of German brewing that proves otherwise?

This one is interesting in that it's reverse, this tannin thing seems to be a more modern advice as opposed to old brewing methods.


Rev.

I'll agree that Google and HBT are great resources for the new brewer. However, I will contend that they also give TOO much information for the new brewer. I'd like to see a video game level system for new brewers, just to cut down on the confusion.

Level 1: Homebrew kits unlocked *complete 3 successful batches to level up*

Level 2: Internet unlocked, stage 1, 15 minutes. Your brewer can now spend 15 minutes per day searching homebrew topics on the web. *find, and understand, diacetly rest on the internet to go to level 3*


Level 3: Recipe calculators unlocked. Special item found, "The Complete Joy of Home Brewing" *Must have 6 successful batches to level up*

Or something like that to keep idiots like me from getting soooo much conflicting information. Baby steps.

Jon73 said:

I'll agree that Google and HBT are great resources for the new brewer. However, I will contend that they also give TOO much information for the new brewer. I'd like to see a video game level system for new brewers, just to cut down on the confusion.

Level 1: Homebrew kits unlocked *complete 3 successful batches to level up*

Level 2: Internet unlocked, stage 1, 15 minutes. Your brewer can now spend 15 minutes per day searching homebrew topics on the web. *find, and understand, diacetly rest on the internet to go to level 3*


Level 3: Recipe calculators unlocked. Special item found, "The Complete Joy of Home Brewing" *Must have 6 successful batches to level up*

Or something like that to keep idiots like me from getting soooo much conflicting information. Baby steps.

Click to expand...

Maybe that would work for you, but it won't fly with a good number of people. When I was first starting out brewing I wanted as much information as I could find on it. Let ME decide how much I can handle in a time frame, don't dictate it to me (don't go all big brother on me now).

That's my typical mode for learning something new. It's worked very well for getting me where I am in my professional life. It's also worked very well in other aspects of my life.

BTW, I've not had any unsuccessful batches to date.

I like the leveling up system because I'm a video game geek, but I agree with Golddiggie. I certainly consider myself a beginner with only a few batches under my belt, but I'm spending soooo much free time cruising these forums and listening to podcasts. I just can't get enough knowledge, and what's not useful right now I'm jotting down or bookmarking for later.

Golddiggie said:

Maybe that would work for you, but it won't fly with a good number of people. When I was first starting out brewing I wanted as much information as I could find on it. Let ME decide how much I can handle in a time frame, don't dictate it to me (don't go all big brother on me now).

That's my typical mode for learning something new. It's worked very well for getting me where I am in my professional life. It's also worked very well in other aspects of my life.

BTW, I've not had any unsuccessful batches to date.

Click to expand...

When I started I picked up Papazians book as well as Designing Great Beers and Radical Brewing

Papazian gave me a fair idea of what I was getting myself into and the basics. I will pass this along to another beginning homebrewer.

Designing great beers I still refer to for various things and the more I bbrew the more I understand that book in ways I didn't before. It will probably stay in my library for a long time to come.

Radical Brewing is a great look into the history of beer and the processes that changed it to what we know now. It also was a fun read because the writer although covering a great deal of information also didn't take himself too seriously and make the book a dry read. This is another I will keep in my library.

I will probably pick up a good yeast book as well in the next month because yeast is a mystery to me a bit still.

I like the tactile response of books and fundemental knowledge to build off of, but I wouldn't take any single printed word as being gospel even on the internet because all theories can change in a matter of hours.

I'm not trying to go big brother. I guess it is just my way of learning/thinking. Do it a couple times to show that it works, then advance your techniques and process'. I suppose we can add this to the ever changing opinions on which this thread was started.

To stay on topic... 60 minute boil vs what I'm perceiving to be a trend towards 75 or 90 minute boils. Why boil longer? I've never really heard of any other pros besides concentrating the wort.

iambeer said:

You forgot:

(Original recommendation) If the beer turns out gross, a nearby woman is responsible and is justiced to death without trial. Her death may cause the beer to recover to a tasty malt beverage within 4 weeks according to the famous Vienna 1658 Christobäumebraumeisteren study.

(Modern day recommendation) various reasons.

Click to expand...

Unless that woman is Yooper (isn't she really just "one of the guys"?) I don't see what's wrong with that! Science be damned!


Great thread though. I'm glad I spent the many many hours devouring this forum before I actually started brewing.

Jon73 said:

To stay on topic... 60 minute boil vs what I'm perceiving to be a trend towards 75 or 90 minute boils. Why boil longer? I've never really heard of any other pros besides concentrating the wort.

Click to expand...

There are times when you also want kettle caramelization of the wort. A longer boil will give that to you, as well as reducing a larger volume to a higher OG. More often you see it used in all grain brewing where we're not adding extract to boost the OG numbers.

I'd be curious to taste batches side by side and see what the taste difference is between identical batches, boil length being the only difference.

Jon73 said:

Or something like that to keep idiots like me from getting soooo much conflicting information. Baby steps.

Click to expand...

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

Golddiggie said:

Maybe that would work for you, but it won't fly with a good number of people. When I was first starting out brewing I wanted as much information as I could find on it. Let ME decide how much I can handle in a time frame, don't dictate it to me (don't go all big brother on me now).

Click to expand...

I don't know why folks are afraid of CONFLICTING information. I don't necessarily even buy the concept of information conflicting.....Information can't conflict, fact are facts. OPINIONS can conflict....and even that's not a bad thing. That just means there's more information to allow me to best make up my own mind.

Like Goldiggie when I want to learn something, I want as much information as possible, I want as many OPINIONS and insights as possible, I want as much wisdom as possible.....then I take all the stuff, and filter it through the same decision making processors I've relied on over the last 40+ years.

And then I come up with what I think "feels" right to me....and apply it.

Rarely is ANY of the information/common wisdom/and even opinions on here bad enough to ruin your beer/wine/mead/cider, like several of us have said, almost everything on here gets instantly peer reviewed by a bunch of folks....and if it is totally bad (which is rare) it's not left on here unmolested. And if it's really bad, to the point of dangerous, or really will ruin your beer, in extremely rare instances the mods will actually delete it, or at least lock it away. (That's only happened a couple times since I've been here, I couldn't even recall what they were...one of them might have been about fermenting with human blood......)

So even if you've chosen wrongly, more than likely the beer is still going to be great. Because again when you look at it most of the conflicting opinions are really just different yet valid ways of achieving the same end.

99% of this brewing stuff about becoming a great brewer is about developing your own unique individual processes, reading different things, trying different things and figuring out what works in your brewing practice. And sharing that stuff with others, not so they brew your way....but so they have some more tools to try out to add to their own arsenal.

My bottling sticky is really a good example of it. I talk about in the beginning figuring out what makes bottling easy for you...following Papazian, and Palmer, and sitting on my ass with the bucket on a table, the wand on a hose and the bottles in boxes on the floor just didn't work for a 6'7" guy with a bad back. I ended up with a back ache, beer on the floor and quite a few empty bottles I capped because I couldn't tell which bottles I filled or not

So I tried a few things that worked for me..I stole the idea of the dip tube from people who brew with keggles with spigots on it. I tried to figure out how to get the bottle at eye level, where I could bring the bottle to the filler, rather than the filler to the bottle, so I attached the wand to the spigot. And I started bottling from right to left since I'm left handed. And it worked for me, and hey, I cut my bottle time in half. So in my excitement I made a thread.

AND THEN, Grinder took my idea, and put my setup above the dishwasher (which doesn't work for ME) and a whole bunch of folks figured out that worked for them. And a bunch of folks came up with some even better dip tube designs. There's at least 5 different dip tube designs.....that doesn't mean they conflict....they all work equally well. It's just based on whatever's available. Pick one, or come up with your own...and it will be good.

It's the same with secondary/extended primary...THEY BOTH WORK. They have their +'s and -'s but they're not in conflict with each other....they're just different ways of getting clear beer, good beer. AND THEY AGREE ON THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT...not to rush your beer...give it time.

They biggest thing, with that is for folks to realize that doing an extended primary will not ruin your beer.,.Your beer will NOT automatically autolyse one day, one month, or maybe even one year after your recipe or the hydrometer says the yeast is done...even if John Palmer said it would in the first edition of HTB.....which he later retracted. Because we PEER REVIEWED it.

But ultimately again, it's about what works for you....And you won't know that unless you're presented with a ton of ideas to choose from.

I built my keezer knowing nothing about kegging and making one, by reading as much on here as I could. Seeing how many different ways folks were doing it. Looking at the opinions about using fans, and temp controllers and types of lines, and everything else. As I read things that made sense to me got incorporated...And some things I tried didn't quite work.....the very definition of trial and error...or I came upon some new idea mid way through and changed gears because that felt right too. And when it was all said and done, I came up with a pretty decent kegging setup.

There was 20 different directions I could have gone...but what came out was what my internal processors deemed a workable solution...and it was...and when it wasn't I changed something....

That how we do things, that's how we learn....Isn't it?

Jon73 said:

I

To stay on topic... 60 minute boil vs what I'm perceiving to be a trend towards 75 or 90 minute boils. Why boil longer? I've never really heard of any other pros besides concentrating the wort.

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing this trend? Where? I'm only seeing where this is concerned where it always has been....60 minute boils for normal situations. 90 minutes if there's pilsner to drive off dms....and maybe longer boils in huge beers to rocket the gravity high.

Where's the 75 minutes as a trend coming from? Not as a standard brewing thing...maybe for odd hop additions...but not for normal situations? Where are these discussions on here?

I'm not afraid of conflicting information or opinions, now. Now that I have educated myself on most of these topics and am able to decipher what works for me and what does not. The root of what I was trying to say was that when I started out in this hobby there was so much information and that did not work for me. I needed to follow the directions, learn the process's, and then branch out. Whereas Golddiggie seems to have been the opposite and went in head first (I'm assuming). I fail to see where either one of us demonstrated any fear of the other's opinion or of conflicting facts. I felt the need to chime in on this because it looks as though you stepped in to mediate an argument that was not there.

You type faster than I do. I have been listening to some of Jamil's CYBI podcast and longer boils have been mentioned often. I also see it in clone recipes. It may be a coincidence, but many of the beer recipes I've looked at call for longer boils.

Revvy said:

I'm not seeing this trend? Where? I'm only seeing where this is concerned where it always has been....60 minute boils for normal situations. 90 minutes if there's pilsner to drive off dms....and maybe longer boils in huge beers to rocket the gravity high.

Where's the 75 minutes as a trend coming from? Not as a standard brewing thing...maybe for odd hop additions...but not for normal situations? Where are these discussions on here?

Click to expand...

I kinda see what he's saying, I feel like I've seen more references to 90min boils lately and even had the same thought a couple weeks ago while browsing around.

Personally I don't really care much about boil length, sometimes I do 30min boils, sometimes 70min boils... length of boil is one way I control the final volume/gravity, e.g. if I run off 1/4 gallon less than I expected, that's about 15min less to boil. It's easy to adjust the hops (if necessary). I measure everything, but if something turns out not to be super precise there's always a way to adjust.

If people believe there's a benefit, that's fine, but I've never seen any reason to worry about it for most styles and in 5-10 gal batches.

Jon73 said:

I'd be curious to taste batches side by side and see what the taste difference is between identical batches, boil length being the only difference.

Click to expand...

They won't be identical. Changing something like that will change the brew. Depending on the recipe, you could have anything from a minor difference to worlds apart.

BTW, most of the time, I target a 60 minute boil time. Sometimes I adjust (post mash) due to having more wort to boil off. I simply delay my first hop addition until I'm ready to start the 60 minute timer.

I did read up the joy book, and followed instructions for my first TWO brews. After that, I had found HBT and started going with more current methods. I've always been a fast learner, quick thinker, and adapted to different situations quickly/easily. So, for me, all of this has been pretty easy. Most of the time, when I want detailed information, it's not hard to come up with. Normally, I'm using software to get that information, so it's even easier.

I'm an advocate of new brewers learning their ingredients instead of brewing a dozen different styles, with each batch being something radically different. IMO, you need to learn how things work with different environmental variables so that you have a better idea of what to expect. To that end, I use only a few different yeast strains for my beers. I also use a handful of hop varieties and have been focusing on using a short list of malts (almost all of those ingredients are from the UK).

IF you really want to learn/expand and become even better, try making a mead. Correction, try making a GREAT mead. There's more than a few methods there too, but they all require far more time (and patience) than with almost all beers. I made my first batches of mead just over two years ago. I had a bottle (375ml) of one of those batches the other night. Very different even compared with 6-9 months ago. I'm looking forward to seeing how it is as it continues to age.

BTW, one thing that I'm pretty sure most brewers will agree upon (at least those who have been doing it for a while)... It's the "in/out" principle. I'm talking about "quality in/quality out, crap in/crap out". Basically, you're only going to get out the quality you put in. If you start off with low end/cheap/poor ingredients, you won't get something good/great out of it. It's also far easier to bugger a batch that was on target for greatness than try to elevate a crud batch into something good/great.

Also, for the record, I've yet to listen to a single brewing podcast. I do have the Designing Great Beers book, as well as Yeast, Radical Brewing and a few smaller books on specific styles I wanted to learn more about (like Barley Wine's). I can't even locate the 'joy' book I first picked up. Once I learned about how to really make a mead, the book was a waste for me.

Something else. I'm always looking to see what I can do/make/change to make my beers either come out even better, make the process easier on me, or both. I'm actually prototyping a fitting to use right now. I should have the first one made before the end of the weekend, and any design tweaks figured out. After that, I'll probably announce it to see if there's any interest (from other brewers). If not, then I'll just make them for me to use.

I would encourage any new brewers to go to sponsored brewing events/days to see how other home brewers go about it. IMO, that will expose you to more configuration options that you might have not even thought about, or considered before.

Golddiggie said:

They won't be identical. Changing something like that will change the brew. Depending on the recipe, you could have anything from a minor difference to worlds apart.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. I'd be interested to see a comparison of 30, 60, and 90min boils with the same recipe and hops all added at 30min or less (probably a style with low hop presence in general would be better for comparison, maybe a cream ale or something). My money would be on there being no discernible differences.

bovineblitz said:

I'm not so sure about that. I'd be interested to see a comparison of 30, 60, and 90min boils with the same recipe and hops all added at 30min or less (probably a style with low hop presence in general would be better for comparison, maybe a cream ale or something). My money would be on there being no discernible differences.

Click to expand...

Nothing from the 30 to the 90? How about between a 60 and 120 or 180? Besides being a stronger brew (higher ABV) I'd wager that there will be different flavors present in the longer boil that are simply not there in the short ones.

Bit of a moot point, IMO, since I set the boil time according to the way the recipe formulates.

Golddiggie said:

Nothing from the 30 to the 90? How about between a 60 and 120 or 180? Besides being a stronger brew (higher ABV) I'd wager that there will be different flavors present in the longer boil that are simply not there in the short ones.

Bit of a moot point, IMO, since I set the boil time according to the way the recipe formulates.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be stronger if you planned the volumes to account for the differences.

I really don't think a variation in the length of a 212*F boil of sugar in a highly diluted solution would do much to change the flavor of the sugars, but perhaps it would have a very small effect. If you want sugars to get a little caramelized you have to reduce the water content significantly which is why some people will pull off a portion and reduce it, similar to a balsalmic or wine reduction sauce.

bovineblitz said:

It wouldn't be stronger if you planned the volumes to account for the differences.

Click to expand...

Then, technically, you're not making two identical batches with the boil time being the only change. You're also changing the volumes being boiled, or topping off with water post boil.

I really don't think a variation in the length of a 212*F boil of sugar in a highly diluted solution would do much to change the flavor of the sugars, but perhaps it would have a very small effect. If you want sugars to get a little caramelized you have to reduce the water content significantly which is why some people will pull off a portion and reduce it, similar to a balsalmic or wine reduction sauce.

Click to expand...

Golddiggie said:

Then, technically, you're not making two identical batches with the boil time being the only change. You're also changing the volumes being boiled, or topping off with water post boil.

Click to expand...

We're not talking about the same thing then.

I'm talking about controlling a single variable, which is boil length. Of course you'd have to increase the pre-boil volume to ensure that the original gravity winds up the same between all three batches, but that's part of the boil length variable. The question is whether a longer boil is better - if you were to actually brew this same beer with a longer boil, of course you'd have to increase the pre-boil volume.

If I'm reading what you're saying right, you're talking about boiling the same pre-boil gravity wort for varying lengths of time, which of course would result in differences as the original gravities would vary significantly.

If we were to do this comparison, my method would be the one used because you'd wind up with the same wort with the only difference between the three being possible effects of boil length.

Think of it like this:

Beer 1 - 1.050 Cream ale with a 30min boil
Beer 2 - 1.050 Cream ale with a 60min boil
Beer 3 - 1.050 Cream ale with a 90 min boil

All hops are added at 30min. Grain bill is equivalent. All 3 worts receive the same yeasts (1 packet S05 each from the same lot). Literally everything is the same except for the boil length (and thus the sparge volume).

We're interested in the effect of boil length on the same beer, so we need our wort to be the same post-boil with only one altered independent variable.

100% with bovineblitz on this one

So in regard to this talk about boil lengths, one thing I've read many times and from many sources is that the longer the boil the more melanoidins are created. So this type of an experiment might be interesting. Is there really enough of a noticeable difference?


Rev.

Rev2010 said:

boil lengths + melanoidins. Is there really enough of a noticeable difference?

Click to expand...

Yes and no. Boil length isn't really the deciding factor though, it's more a matter of how hard the boil is. I've boiled beers for 5 hours at a very low rate and gotten minimal melanoidins and caramelization, and conversely done beers for 3 hours at a high rate and gotten really intense caramels and melanoidins. The idea some people have that as soon as you go past a 2 hour boil it's going to make the beer too caramelly or melanoidiny is plain wrong, as time spent on a boil by itself doesn't dictate what you get.

Rev2010 said:

7. (One opinion) It's not necessary to decant a one liter starter since it's only about 5% of the total volume of a 5 gallon batch therefore won't affect the taste. (Second opinion) Always decant the starter because you don't want sour oxidized starter wort in your beer.

Click to expand...

This is the one that caught my eye on the first read, and I'm glad you put "one opinion", "second opinion" instead of "original reccomendation", "modern day reccomendation". For me, at least, the jury is still out on this one. I've never decanted starters, so I have no side-by-side comparisons. But the logic that goes into your paraphrase that is often cited here "you don't want sour oxidized starter wort in your beer." is something I don't buy into, until I see some data otherwise. If you pitch at high krausen, which is what I (and presumably most others who pitch full starters into their beer without decanting) do, then you're not pitching sour oxidized starter wort into your beer. If you follow proper sanitation protocol, even using an open (i.e. foil-covered) starter, and pitch at high krausen (usually within 10 - 18 hours for me), then your starter wort IS NOT oxidized or sour. I've never decanted starters, and have never gotten any hints of oxidation or sourness in any of my beers (unless of course I was purposefully making a sour beer!).

I decant my starters because I don't want DME based wort to go into my all grain batch. Plus, I'm usually at the safe point, for total volume, in fermenting vessel, Adding another 2-3L of spent starter wort could put me into a serious danger zone. IMO, properly planning (taking cold crash time into account) for the starter means I don't need to worry about that at all.

BTW, I'm often doing stepped starters, so I'm already chilling and decanting at least one time. In reality, it's a damned easy process.

Yeah, if you're doing big starters or stepping, you decant by necessity. I only do 0.75 - 1 L starters, so I typically don't worry about it. Additionally, I rarely know that I'm brewing until the day before, and can only plan on doing a starter before I go to bed that night, so chilling and decanting isn't something that is typically well-timed for me.

Definitely not saying that you SHOULD put your full starter into your beer and not decant, I'm just saying that if you do a relatively small starter and pitch at high krausen, you're not pitching oxidized sour wort into your beer.

Rev2010 said:

I've been brewing for two years now so I'm past most doubts and worries, been there done that and I've got my processes down, but one thing I've noticed that still intrigues me is the extremely varied opinions on what is proper and what is not over time. I know overall even if one screws up big time we nearly always end up with beer. And most of the time perfectly drinkable beer. But having read a number of respected books and being on here for all this time really has me intrigued as to the changes in opinions on processes between the brewing literature and current day brewing. I will list a few of the examples I can think of off the top of my head:

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.

2. (Original recommendation) Fly Sparging gives the best effeciency and if you batch sparge the more sparges the better effeciency. (Modern day recommendation) It doesn't matter much at all and the efficiency difference is so minute that a single sparge is all that is necessary.

3. (Original recommendation) Do a protein rest for pilsener malt. (Modern day recommendation) Most malts today are well modified so it's not necessary unless you know for sure the malt is under modified - hence a single infusion is often all that is necessary.

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.

5. (Original recommendation) For a hefeweizen a ferulic acid rest creates compounds that bring out more of the "clove" taste. (Modern day recommendation) So and so has done extensive tests and finds no difference in taste therefore it's an unnecessary step.

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.

7. (One opinion) It's not necessary to decant a one liter starter since it's only about 5% of the total volume of a 5 gallon batch therefore won't affect the taste. (Second opinion) Always decant the starter because you don't want sour oxidized starter wort in your beer.

8. (Original recommendation) Cool your priming suger solution before you add it to the beer. (Modern day recommendation) It's not necessary to cool the priming sugar solution since it's so small an amount any yeast it might immmediately contact and shock/kill is so small as to be insignificant.

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.

Well, these are what I could think of off the top of my head. I'd like to state right up front I am NOT challenging any of the recommendations either old or new. I've found and gone with my own processes and am quite happy with the beers I brew so no trouble there. I'm only creating this thread to see if anyone else has been intrigued by the large degree of difference in process opinions in this wonderful hobby/field of ours. Again, either way you are making beer, I just find it rather interesting that on one hand there are those that tout things as the "proper way" and yet there are many hardened experienced others that say, "Umm no... that isn't necessary at all".


Rev.

Click to expand...

You been brewing for TWO WHOLE YEARS!!! Wow, you must be some kind of expert by now. Have you thought about just going back to brewing and getting over yourself? Some of us have been homebrewing for over 35 years and after many experiments, bow to the time honored traditions. Those people were not fools, and they had hundreds of years to perfect their knowledge. Why do you suppose Sam Adams brews in the traditional manner? Some of their beers are decoction brewed.

Yeah, concerning the premise for your post, I can agree, you can hear anything anymore because there are a bunch of WANNABEEs only interested in trying to exalt themselves with their supposed knowledge of brewing. My suggestion is to ground oneself in Fix, Donaldson, Miller, Noonan, and those who have proven themselves, then forget about the Johnny-come-lately bunch with all their mis-information.

I typically plan my brew-days at least a week ahead. I've actually got them planned for the rest of this year (not that much of a stretch though). I like to plan the next 2-3 so that I make sure I have the ingredients I need to make them.

No, I was never a Boy Scout, but I'm very often more than a little prepared. I know where my towel is, and I got my pocket knife on me...

sudbuster said:

You been brewing for TWO WHOLE YEARS!!! Wow, you must be some kind of expert by now. Have you thought about just going back to brewing and getting over yourself? Some of us have been homebrewing for over 35 years and after many experiments, bow to the time honored traditions. Those people were not fools, and they had hundreds of years to perfect their knowledge. Why do you suppose Sam Adams brews in the traditional manner? Some of their beers are decoction brewed.

Yeah, concerning the premise for your post, I can agree, you can hear anything anymore because there are a bunch of WANNABEEs only interested in trying to exalt themselves with their supposed knowledge of brewing. My suggestion is to ground oneself in Fix, Donaldson, Miller, Noonan, and those who have proven themselves, then forget about the Johnny-come-lately bunch with all their mis-information.

Click to expand...

Eeek, someone thinks they're hot stuff. I guess all of us who have been brewing for less than 35 years should just stay in our cave and never come out; sharing knowledge on the internet could never lead to better beer! ipe:

Anyway, getting back to topic from a couple pages back, I've got a question regarding the rapid advances in sharing brewing information. I want to pick up a new book soon and I'm wondering if Designing Great Beers is still relevant. I always hear it mentioned despite being published 15 years ago. Or would my money be better spent with something new from Jamil, like Brewing Classic Styles or Yeast?

I borrowed Papazian's book from the library and really wasn't impressed compared reading through these forums for a while. I'm not so interested in learning about when beer was made from a hopped extract can in the grocery store and when hops were sold brown. Thanks.

Designing Great Beers is more about the science behind the brew, along with some history of the styles. It has a limited selection of styles covered though.

IMO, Yeast is well worth the money.

I don't have the Brewing Classic Styles, so I don't know about that one. I have a few other books, but Yeast sticks out as probably the most valuable. Followed (closely) by Designing Great Beers. After that, I have a few style specific books that I've read. Basically good info on the history of a style, but not much for recipes we would use (or I would).