Bob's position makes me feel like that he wouldn't even try one of my beers if I had him over, and if he did try one, he would not be capable of calling it a beer. Maybe that is his intent? I highly doubt most people would object to drinking what I make and call beer, and most would even find it to be very good beer. So somewhere, there is a disconnect in the message. That's what I'm hoping we can resolve.
Scott,
I assure you, I am keen to try any and all beers I can get my lips around. Good beer is good beer, regardless of my crusade to get good practices into as many breweries as possible, or whether or not your method conforms to those practices. Good beer can be brewed by any number of methods.
I am very sorry indeed that the message got screwed up in the delivery. The message - not of the OP, necessarily, but of which the OP is a corollary - is simple: Consistent adherence to established procedures leads to the best possible beer more often than slap-dash procedures ever possibly can. I'm sure we can agree on that!
Passion often overrides reason. I am guilty of that, in this thread and elsewhere. It sucks when passion becomes the source of strife. I shall endeavor to correct that tendency in future.
What really set this off, is when a few stated there are other ways to brew, the general reception was "You're wrong".
That's where I (and presumably others) could possibly have been a bit more diplomatic.
The trouble is, while there are other ways to brew, there really is only one set of procedures widely accepted as "proper". While it's arguably too black-and-white to baldly say, "You're wrong", it really is inarguable to say that industry-standard procedure can possibly
be wrong. I suppose it's better to say, instead of a flat "UR DOIN IT RONG", that "while your procedure may work for you, the evidence says that it is inconsistent with standard practice."
In other words, yes there are many ways to brew. But there is really only one way to brew consistently excellent beer, one way which guides the brewer to excellence brew after brew after brew. It isn't religion, where nothing can be proved; it's where art meets science. Art creates the brew. Science lets you re-create that excellence time after time.
What does that message tell new brewers to the hobby?
One would hope it tells new brewers simply that "Here is the best way to be consistently successful." You're right, though, that smacking someone and yelling "UR DOIN IT RONG" is not the best way to bring folks round to your modus operandi.
I started off extremely simple and was happy brewing that way for years. What would happen if the same position and tone were taken regarding all grain brewing? Or using glycol chillers rather than whatever is the warmest or coolest spot in the house? The very same quality control arguments can be made for those.
Of course. However, it's not really a technical argument about technology; it's about basic brewing technique: Managing one of the four major constituents of beer with the same level of detail as you manage any other.
After all, glycol cooling is nothing more than a technology which makes controlling the ferment temperature less slap-dash than different locations.
See? We're getting somewhere! It's still pretty far removed from the OP, having devolved rather deeply into a discussion about the philosophy of brewing techniques.
As someone new to the brewing process I have tried pitching to the yeast cake once. I'd suggest that it might not be a bad idea for people to pitch the same recipe back to back using the existing cake. In my case I was left with no doubts there was a difference. Each person can then use what they learned to their own taste.
Well said!
That's why I really need to stop going on about philosophy and start rewriting the damn OP.
Bob
.
