Commercial Brewing vs Homebrewing Conditioning Time

[rifraf]

Hi all,

I finally went on my first brewery tour post homebrew addiction, and was very excited to get a bunch of questions answered that I'd never thought to ask. Unfortunately, our tour guide had only been brewing for 4 months and had never homebrewed before so was not able to answer many of my questions and even game some odd answers to questions from other people. For example, when asked what the difference between wet hopping and dry hopping was, and what effect it had on the beer, he responded that wet hopping means using pelletized hops and dry hopping means using whole hops. He went on to say that there isn't a difference in the final product, it's just personal preference of the brewer and cost/availability. He later told me that his first beer was coming up ready for tapping and that he really likes bitter beers so he "dry hopped the **** out of it in the fermentor".

First of all, that sounded completely wrong to me but is that true of brewpub scale commercial brewing?

Second of all, the one question I wanted answered that he admitted he had no idea is this:

Is there something about the commercial process and scale that they brew on that eliminates the need to condition for a long time? How is it that they can basically serve 3 days after they transfer out of primary without having to condition off flavors out of their beer or let flavors mellow and come together?

Everything I've read about homebrewing says that our beers will be better the longer they sit and condition. I've already found that to be true, but I doubt that commercial breweries can afford to let their flagship beers sit for months at a time. He said the normal brew day to tap day time for most the beers at this brewpub is 3-4 weeks, and they're actually set up to serve right out of their bright tanks if necessary. He said they typically ferment for 3 weeks, force carb for a day or two in the bright tank, and go straight to tap/keg. All (95%) of the beers brewed at this brewpub are consumed on site, and are very tasty FWIW. Do they just have such complete control over their process that they don't NEED to condition?

 

[broadbill]

I can have session and standard gravity beers (1.040-1.060) beers ready to drink in 10-14 days, so I disagree with the statement that homebrewing = long conditioning times. I do this with fermentation temp regulation and proper yeast management.

 

[Qhrumphf]

A couple thoughts that may well be off base (as I have zero experience with large scale brewing) if someone with more knowledge wants to correct me:

-The hops answers I agree are completely off base. I either hear wet hops being straight off the vine and undried fresh from harvest, or I had a local brewer tell me by "wet hop" they were using spent hops from previous batches to further extract bitterness/flavor/aroma that weren't extracted by the first beer (I didn't like the beer they did it in FWIW)

-I hear repeatedly (from the likes of John Palmer) that pro brewers have such a quick turnaround out of financial necessity, and that's why homebrewers who can afford extra conditioning can make beer far better than the commercial stuff.

-I'd also think that pro brewers have the equipment (as do some homebrewers) to be able to seal off the fermenter towards the end of fermentation, and with an appropriate pressure relief valve can utilize the CO2 produced during fermentation to carbonate that way, shortening the turnaround time.

-Some brewers of big beers are pretty explicit on the bottle saying it needs to age and providing a "best after" date. IE brewing with the intention that the customer will continue to age in the bottle after purchasing and let it condition that way.

-The timetable he's told you doesn't seem unreasonable for many beers provided they're not big beer.

 

[wailingguitar]

As for wet hopping/dry hopping... um.. clearly the guy had no clue. Dry hopping simply means hops added to beer after kettle knock out. You get aroma (mostly) and some flavor but virtually no bitterness. It is a fresher, more floral hop character.

Typical turn around for an ale in a brewpub situation is 14 days brew to glass, that is the time frame that you plan for when sizing capacity. Other than more accurate temp control, commercial facilities have nothing on the average homebrewer that helps them rapidly condition the beers. Ferment, crash cool, drop yeast (which is basically the same thing as doing a secondary at the home scale), xfer to bbt, carb, serve. A possible variant being the use of a spundig device which lets you carb in the fermenter.

Some of the difference can be attributed to recipe formulation, but that's not that huge a thing. I think the big thing is good ferment temps, crash cooling and dropping out the yeast.

 

[dutchoven]

Breweries have massive filtration abilities ... This cuts the "aging" time significantly. Us homebrewers have to rely on time or finings to clear the beer. I've pushed beer grain to glass in three weeks using finings and cold crashing.

 

[wailingguitar]

-I'd also think that pro brewers have the equipment (as do some homebrewers) to be able to seal off the fermenter towards the end of fermentation, and with an appropriate pressure relief valve can utilize the CO2 produced during fermentation to carbonate that way, shortening the turnaround time.

This is mainly done for $ savings and doesn't affect turn around time by more than an hour at most. A commercial brewery using CO2 stones can carb up a beer from flat to 2.5 volumes in a couple hours.

 

[wailingguitar]

Breweries have massive filtration abilities ... This cuts the "aging" time significantly. Us homebrewers have to rely on time or finings to clear the beer. I've pushed beer grain to glass in three weeks using finings and cold crashing.

Filtration doesn't affect this in the way you suggest. I have worked in many breweries that produced both filtered and unfiltered beers with no difference in turn around time.

 

[bob1852]

As for wet hopping/dry hopping... um.. clearly the guy had no clue. Dry hopping simply means hops added to beer after kettle knock out. You get aroma (mostly) and some flavor but virtually no bitterness. It is a fresher, more floral hop character.

Dry hopping is a post fermentation hop addition, not a flame out hop addition.

 

[Gear101]

goose island matilda or 120 Dogfish.. all depends on the type of beer.. WOW

 

[wailingguitar]

Dry hopping is a post fermentation hop addition, not a flame out hop addition.

Anything after knock out, knock out and flame out are not the same thing... knock out = xfer out of kettle, through chilling process into fermenter. Dry hopping can be done at the same time as yeast pitching, it doesn't have to be "post fermentation". The effect will be slightly different, but it is still dry hopping. For instance, one chain I was brewmaster for used spundigs at all three locations. We had to dry hop in the unitanks prior to knockout into the tanks, otherwise dry hopping would not be possible since there was no way to open the fermenters post fermentation without losing carbonation. Since there was some aromatic blowoff with the CO2 released through the spundig it was necessary to increase dry hop rate by about 10% to get the same effect.

 

[bob1852]

Anything after knock out, knock out and flame out are not the same thing... knock out = xfer out of kettle, through chilling process into fermenter. Dry hopping can be done at the same time as yeast pitching, it doesn't have to be "post fermentation". The effect will be slightly different, but it is still dry hopping. For instance, one chain I was brewmaster for used spundigs at all three locations. We had to dry hop in the unitanks prior to knockout into the tanks, otherwise dry hopping would not be possible since there was no way to open the fermenters post fermentation without losing carbonation. Since there was some aromatic blowoff with the CO2 released through the spundig it was necessary to increase dry hop rate by about 10% to get the same effect.

Thx for the extra explanation.

At the homebrewing scale I've always seen it referred to as post-fermentation so as to, as you point out, not lose the aroma that's driven off during fermentation.

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

Is there something about the commercial process and scale that they brew on that eliminates the need to condition for a long time? How is it that they can basically serve 3 days after they transfer out of primary without having to condition off flavors out of their beer or let flavors mellow and come together?

They don't have to condition out off flavors because they shouldn't have any off flavors. Once the yeast is done (assuming also cleaning up acetaldehyde), it's done. They achieve fast turnaround by adequately monitoring yeast health, pitching rates, pitching temp, and fermentation temp.

They typically have good methods of clearing a beer as well, whether it's filtration, finings, or just cold crashing. I found a long time ago that my dry-hopped IPA's typically needed 2-3 weeks to "condition" in the serving kegs before they tasted "right". Then I tried using gelatin for fining, and that became 1-2 days. It turns out the "young" flavor wasn't that the beer was young; it merely had more sediment still in suspension.

Homebrewers can definitely turn beers around that quickly. The real key is yeast pitching rate and good control of your temperatures. But improving clarity also helps improve the turnaround.

For beers I don't dry-hop, I usually ferment about 10-11 days, cold-crash (and sometimes also add gelatin) for about 3 days, and keg it. For beers I dry-hop, I ferment 7 days, dry-hop for 10-11 days, and then do the cold-crash [and sometimes gelatin] the same way. I force carbonate overnight, so I can be drinking the beer the next day. For clarity, one of the things I do is never move the fermenter from brew day to kegging (I don't use secondary). Because I can transfer under CO2 pressure, I don't have to lift the fermenter and stir up all that sediment to use gravity for racking.

That's basically 14-15 days grain to glass for many beers, 21-22 days for dry-hopped beers. And the beers pour clear and taste good right away.

 

[atgunning]

With proper yeast management, i.e. ensuring viable yeast and proper pitching rates, most beers can ferment out in about 4-7 days. I regularly brew with a very experienced pro brewer and he gets nervous if you tell him things have been in primary longer than 10 days. I usually have a 7-10 day ferment which includes a 1-2 day diacetyl rest, then immediately cold crash in secondary overnight, before kegging and force carbing at 35psi. Under 14 days grain to glass, even high gravity belgians. However, some higher gravity beers definitely benefit from a longer conditioning time. It all depends on what you are trying to get from your beer.

Longer fermentations aren't necessarily incorrect, but they are not as necessary as people think. Propping up your yeast or spending more on extra will definitely help this out. Once gravity is stable give it a diacetyl rest, and get that bad boy into a keg or secondary, depending on your religion.

 

[RobMT]

So in short, commercial brewers never have "green" Beer because they have tight yeast and fermentation temperature management?

 

[broadbill]

So in short, commercial brewers never have "green" Beer because they have tight yeast and fermentation temperature management?

If by "green" you mean certain fermentation by-products/off-flavors that mellow out with time...then not really. But not all homebrew starts our "green" either...by managing the same parameters the commercial brewers do, you can also prevent this.

 

[Gameface]

Since I started fermenting in chest freezers and using a plate filter when I keg I regularly start drinking beers 14 days after I brew them.

On the filter issue. I make 10 gallon batches and have on two occasions given up on filtering after the first 5 gallon keg (due to clogging). So I have 1 5g keg filtered and 1 keg not filtered from the same exact batch of beer. I preferred the taste of the filtered beer (both cases an ESB) by a lot compared to the unfiltered beer.

 

[HolyKrausenBatman]

Very large scale micro's also have the advantage of fermenting under pressure in tall conicals. The pressure, which is formed by the tall column of liquid, aids in suppressing esters formed by the yeast, allowing higher fermentation temperatures and faster approach to FG. Proper pitching rates, tight temperature control and oxygenation has sped up my homebrew process dramatically, and I recall see on this forum a while back a home brewer who built a pressurized fermentation system.

 

[wailingguitar]

Very large scale micro's also have the advantage of fermenting under pressure in tall conicals. The pressure, which is formed by the tall column of liquid, aids in suppressing esters formed by the yeast, allowing higher fermentation temperatures and faster approach to FG. Proper pitching rates, tight temperature control and oxygenation has sped up my homebrew process dramatically, and I recall see on this forum a while back a home brewer who built a pressurized fermentation system.

While it is true that pressure will suppress ester formation to a degree, a larger factor is the currents that are created in a cylindroconical fermenter as opposed to the flat bottom/shallow fermenters that homebrewers tend to use. It's a trade off though, because you get better yeast health in a shallow, open or semi-open vessel.

The temp thing; you aren't going to be seeing commercial breweries fermenting at higher temps. It is still strain dependent. The vast majority of commercial ales, for instance, will be fermented between 60 and 70F, just as you would do at home.

 

[rifraf]

Thanks everybody! Great info, and it's given me a target...if my beers taste great by the time they carbonate I'll feel better about my process.

 

[OldBunny]

Since I started fermenting in chest freezers and using a plate filter when I keg I regularly start drinking beers 14 days after I brew them.

Several of the posts here have talked about temperature control during fermentation. For a typical ale yeast, what is your set temperature?

 

[Piratwolf]

Several of the posts here have talked about temperature control during fermentation. For a typical ale yeast, what is your set temperature?

I run between 62 and 68 for the first 4-7 days then let it rise to ~70, the exception would be Belgians, of course, which I let go up to 75-76.

It's important to note that pro breweries can run ales at 70-72F b/c their volumes put pressure on the yeast which retard ester formation. For us that's gonna get pretty fruity!

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

Several of the posts here have talked about temperature control during fermentation. For a typical ale yeast, what is your set temperature?

Anywhere between 60 and 68, depending on the yeast and the beer style.

 

[wailingguitar]

I run between 62 and 68 for the first 4-7 days then let it rise to ~70, the exception would be Belgians, of course, which I let go up to 75-76.

It's important to note that pro breweries can run ales at 70-72F b/c their volumes put pressure on the yeast which retard ester formation. For us that's gonna get pretty fruity!

Look back at my previous post. The temp/pressure/ester thing is a bit misunderstood

 

[Gameface]

Several of the posts here have talked about temperature control during fermentation. For a typical ale yeast, what is your set temperature?

63 with a 2 degree delta, so it can rise to 65 before the chest freezer comes on and cools it back down to 63.

 

[Piratwolf]

Look back at my previous post. The temp/pressure/ester thing is a bit misunderstood

Sounds like you have more pro experience, so I appreciate the input. That said, as long as I'm listening to some of the most famous US pro brewers say they are fermenting at 70-72 because the pressure that cylindro-conical fermenters put on the yeast reduces ester formation, I expect I'll take their words for it.

However,, I don't see why the currents you mention might not be part of the answer as well.

 

[wailingguitar]

Sounds like you have more pro experience, so I appreciate the input. That said, as long as I'm listening to some of the most famous US pro brewers say they are fermenting at 70-72 because the pressure that cylindro-conical fermenters put on the yeast reduces ester formation, I expect I'll take their words for it.

However,, I don't see why the currents you mention might not be part of the answer as well.

I don't know who your famous brewers are, so I won't comment on them. I may not be "famous", but I have been doing this for a long time (23 years) and have learned from some of the best in the industry. Have worked in many capacities; packaging director, assistant brewer, brewmaster, industry consultant...

Not sure if you misunderstood the role of pressure, or if it was misrepresented to you. The head pressure effect on ester formation, while notable isn't the primary factor as such. Essentially, what occurs is that the geometry of the tank (here is where the main influence of the head pressure comes in) drives yeast down to the center, this yeast is fermenting heavily and creating a mass of CO2 which moves upwards, carrying yeast along with it. The glycol bands on the tank amplify this effect by creating convective currents. This process actually keeps more yeast in suspension during active fermentation, this in turn both reduces some ester formation AND speeds the cleanup towards the end of active ferment. If pressure alone were the main factor, massive dish bottom tanks or horizontal tanks would give the same effect, they do not.

Here is a link to a post on probrewer where someone else explains it, last post of thread. Click on the poster's name for a bit of his background and qualifications.

http://probrewer.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=5809&highlight=cylindroconical+ester

 

[Piratwolf]

Wailing~

Now THAT is a very informative post. Thank you. I see your point more clearly now than I did from the first go-round, and it makes sense.

I don't think it was misrepresented to me (interviews with SN & Stone brewers on Brewing Network shows) so much as simplified to a point where I misinterpreted it.

Also, I think my reply to you came across rather rude. It wasn't meant that way... I just get up at 4am in the morning and read HBT while waking up, so sometimes my early posts are a little abrupt.

Cheers for the help, sir!

 

[wailingguitar]

Wailing~

Now THAT is a very informative post. Thank you. I see your point more clearly now than I did from the first go-round, and it makes sense.

I don't think it was misrepresented to me (interviews with SN & Stone brewers on Brewing Network shows) so much as simplified to a point where I misinterpreted it.

Also, I think my reply to you came across rather rude. It wasn't meant that way... I just get up at 4am in the morning and read HBT while waking up, so sometimes my early posts are a little abrupt.

Cheers for the help, sir!

I'm operating (barely!) on days of sleep dep. myself and totally understand that... I may be a bit cranky from it myself... no harm, no foul Thanks and cheers to you as well!

I haven't ever looked at BrewingNetwork I must admit, I should check it out. I think you may be right about the oversimplification aspect since the author of the probrewer post I mentioned has, amongst others, brewed at SN.

In the end, I don't care how you, I or Bob down the road makes beer. Either it's good or it isn't... And most of it is good! All that matters is what hits the glass

 

[helibrewer]

wailingguitar What is your experience/opinion on closed-system, pressurized fermentation? It is completely do-able at the homebrewer level and was just curious about it's acceptance.

 

[wailingguitar]

wailingguitar What is your experience/opinion on closed-system, pressurized fermentation? It is completely do-able at the homebrewer level and was just curious about it's acceptance.

Interesting question. (forgive my rambling answer kids running in and out!) I was brewmaster of a company that had three sites and we used Barby-Kuhner spundig valves for carbonation on the primaries at all locations. The differences in flavor profile that may have occurred were minor, noticeable, but minor. It can be hard to pin down with all of the variables of raw material suppliers, tank geometry, brewhouse efficiencies, general "house flavors", etc. I do believe that you can get a slightly more neutral flavor profile... In my opinion it is slight, but certainly be part of the equation (I say slight, taste is subjective!). Further, I am of the opinion that the CO2 presence in the beer is "smoother"... much in the same way that many people say bottle/cask conditioned beers have a smoother CO2 presence. I believe the combination of these two factors are what makes the spundig process so good for lagers. It is also possible to turn beers over very rapidly with a pressurized ferment, it is a combination of the factors in my previous posts with those I mentioned here. While not a perfect situation, when forced you could potentially turn an ale over in as little as a week... although 14 days is the goal.

It is common practice to say "achieve 80% of projected attenuation" before capping, yadda, yadda... that isn't really necessary. That is, IF you have a reliable spundig! I would pitch yeast and then cap the tank when I saw active ferment. In practice, this would mean that I would knock-out in the afternoon, then cap the tank when I arrived the next morning. Would begin process by capping the tank with the spundig then adding pressure to the tank. It may be a little bit of a cheat to add some head pressure, BUT it is a potential safety issue. The blow off valves are not certain to maintain their set point between uses! Imagine capping the tank, walking away and then hours later KABOOM! DOH! (had two guys turn tank manways inside out by not setting valves properly, they were shown the road, fortunately no one was hurt) SO, I would pressurize the tank to the level I was looking for, make CERTAIN the spundig was set to blow off just above that point and then let it go on it's merry way. The beer won't over carb because the pressure will remain constant and excess will blow off. Never failed... I did, on a couple of occasions, have less than stellar success when waiting for a certain degree of attenuation before capping. Ended up having to use a CO2 stone on those batches to bump the carb level up.

Why don't more commercial breweries use spundigs? For one, I think maybe the main issue, it is important to have a tank rated to a higher pressure. This means your fermenters are going to cost more up front. Spundigs aren't cheap, and there are only a few companies that make them. They are less forgiving than using a carbonation stone and require more attention, which can be an issue for a harried brewer.

I love this method for the fact that you can get this oh-so-nice CO2 presence in the beer. I think it's great, preferable even, for lagers. However, for ales, I prefer a shallow, open fermenter. The tank geometry results in a healthier yeast and the changed fermentation dynamics really showcase the different characteristics of the yeast.

I have never done a pressurized ferment at the home level, but it is certainly doable. There are, of course, high-dollar cylindroconical fermenters that would do the trick, but I'm sure you have seen home-grown spundigs that allow you to do the same thing in a corny keg. I believe there are a few threads on the topic here. I may make one for myself to do some lagers with, especially those that I expect to sit around for several months before serving.

 

[helibrewer]

Excellent, thanks for taking the time to cover all of that. Did you do the spundig lagers at higher temps? I normally ferment at 48-50 using a thermowell and controller.

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

Now THAT is a very informative post. Thank you. I see your point more clearly now than I did from the first go-round, and it makes sense.

I don't think it was misrepresented to me (interviews with SN & Stone brewers on Brewing Network shows) so much as simplified to a point where I misinterpreted it.

Remember one thing... Just because someone's a professional brewer does not mean they're an expert in brewing science. There's an aspect to brewing (and actually to almost all jobs) where "doing what works" is a hell of a lot more important than "knowing why it works".

Many of us, as homebrewers, are science geeks (I know I am). That is, we want to know *exactly* what is going on and why. For many of us, it goes well beyond the level of practical knowledge, because many of the things we learn will never have application on the homebrew level. Knowing whether the reduced ester formation in large conical fermenters is due to the geometry of the vessel or due to the added pressure of the liquid is only of value if we will one day have large conical fermenters.

As an example, I interviewed for a job in college at Motorola. The job would be working on microprocessors used in cellular telephone communication. As i was coming out of school with a BSEE, not a PhD, it wouldn't have been my job to determine the signal processing algorithm -- it would be my job to make the processor perform the function I'd been given. Frankly it didn't matter if I understood why that algorithm worked or not, as long as I could make the processor implement it.

But what's forgotten is that for a pro brewer, knowing whether the reduced ester formation is due to the geometry of the vessel or due to the pressure of the liquid is a lot less important than following procedures that work. If pitching X quantity of good yeast into fermenter of Y shape and size and fermenting at temperature Z result in the right finished product, all that really matters is that they can faithfully repeat that process every time. Even for experienced or experimental brewers, sometimes having really awesome intuitive sense of how to create tasty recipes is a lot more important than knowing the science of fermenter geometry. It may be more important to focus on one thing than another.

Now, that doesn't mean there's no value in understanding. The brewer who really understands the science may have a better time trying to scale up pilot batches produced on smaller equipment to get the same flavors in big-scale brewing. Or, if perhaps they're getting different results than they expect to get on some batches, knowing the science behind what they're doing helps the better understand how to change their processes to get the result they want. In the engineer example, understanding the algorithm might help to better debug the code and better understand results that "don't look right", or may allow for certain optimization steps that increase efficiency or reduce cost in the system. At the homebrew level, understanding the science *might* help you design a fermenter if you decide you're the tinkering sort that enjoys that thing. Knowing the science might allow you create a fermenter that will work as well at 72 degrees as some of us get at 64 degrees, giving you the freedom to keep your batches outside a temp-controlled fridge during fermentation and thus saving money. There's value in understanding these things, but my point is that it's not exactly required to get the job done.

But when a professional brewer (or professional anything, frankly) tells you why you should do something, sometimes you have to ask whether they're telling you that because they know it works, FOR THEM, or because they REALLY deeply understand the science behind it. It's not always easy to tell the difference...

 

[wailingguitar]

Excellent, thanks for taking the time to cover all of that. Did you do the spundig lagers at higher temps? I normally ferment at 48-50 using a thermowell and controller.

Actually no, I tried to ferment my lagers as low as possible with that system. Usually around 45F, but I actually have had active ferment with S-23 at 35F. I have done Bo Pils, Doppelbock, Marzen and Shwarzbier with S-23, very cold, using spundig. The beers turned out VERY nice, IMO... clean, malty... never a need for a diactyl rest (actually, in 23 years I have never done a warm temp diacetyl rest). Of course, I wasn't trying to flip the lagers quickly. Usually 45-60 days.

FWIW, even though I went into the detail about temp/pressure/esters/yaddayadda, I was never one to go for the higher temps. When it is up to me (i.e. I'm not working under another brewer) I shoot for cooler temps; 65F for ales, 55F for weizen, 45F (or lower) for lagers. That being said, it is also strain dependent and you can get different characteristics from the yeast depending on many factors (tank geometry, temperature, aeration levels, pitching quantities, etc) you have to play with it and see what works in different situations.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Remember one thing... Just because someone's a professional brewer does not mean they're an expert in brewing science. There's an aspect to brewing (and actually to almost all jobs) where "doing what works" is a hell of a lot more important than "knowing why it works".

Many of us, as homebrewers, are science geeks (I know I am). That is, we want to know *exactly* what is going on and why. For many of us, it goes well beyond the level of practical knowledge, because many of the things we learn will never have application on the homebrew level. Knowing whether the reduced ester formation in large conical fermenters is due to the geometry of the vessel or due to the added pressure of the liquid is only of value if we will one day have large conical fermenters.

As an example, I interviewed for a job in college at Motorola. The job would be working on microprocessors used in cellular telephone communication. As i was coming out of school with a BSEE, not a PhD, it wouldn't have been my job to determine the signal processing algorithm -- it would be my job to make the processor perform the function I'd been given. Frankly it didn't matter if I understood why that algorithm worked or not, as long as I could make the processor implement it.

But what's forgotten is that for a pro brewer, knowing whether the reduced ester formation is due to the geometry of the vessel or due to the pressure of the liquid is a lot less important than following procedures that work. If pitching X quantity of good yeast into fermenter of Y shape and size and fermenting at temperature Z result in the right finished product, all that really matters is that they can faithfully repeat that process every time. Even for experienced or experimental brewers, sometimes having really awesome intuitive sense of how to create tasty recipes is a lot more important than knowing the science of fermenter geometry. It may be more important to focus on one thing than another.

Now, that doesn't mean there's no value in understanding. The brewer who really understands the science may have a better time trying to scale up pilot batches produced on smaller equipment to get the same flavors in big-scale brewing. Or, if perhaps they're getting different results than they expect to get on some batches, knowing the science behind what they're doing helps the better understand how to change their processes to get the result they want. In the engineer example, understanding the algorithm might help to better debug the code and better understand results that "don't look right", or may allow for certain optimization steps that increase efficiency or reduce cost in the system. At the homebrew level, understanding the science *might* help you design a fermenter if you decide you're the tinkering sort that enjoys that thing. Knowing the science might allow you create a fermenter that will work as well at 72 degrees as some of us get at 64 degrees, giving you the freedom to keep your batches outside a temp-controlled fridge during fermentation and thus saving money. There's value in understanding these things, but my point is that it's not exactly required to get the job done.

But when a professional brewer (or professional anything, frankly) tells you why you should do something, sometimes you have to ask whether they're telling you that because they know it works, FOR THEM, or because they REALLY deeply understand the science behind it. It's not always easy to tell the difference...

Not disagreeing with you at all, but there's the other side of the coin- a textbook understanding of why something works or how it should work means all of jack squat when it comes to the real world.

 

[wailingguitar]

Remember one thing... Just because someone's a professional brewer does not mean they're an expert in brewing science. There's an aspect to brewing (and actually to almost all jobs) where "doing what works" is a hell of a lot more important than "knowing why it works".

Many of us, as homebrewers, are science geeks (I know I am). That is, we want to know *exactly* what is going on and why. For many of us, it goes well beyond the level of practical knowledge, because many of the things we learn will never have application on the homebrew level. Knowing whether the reduced ester formation in large conical fermenters is due to the geometry of the vessel or due to the added pressure of the liquid is only of value if we will one day have large conical fermenters.

As an example, I interviewed for a job in college at Motorola. The job would be working on microprocessors used in cellular telephone communication. As i was coming out of school with a BSEE, not a PhD, it wouldn't have been my job to determine the signal processing algorithm -- it would be my job to make the processor perform the function I'd been given. Frankly it didn't matter if I understood why that algorithm worked or not, as long as I could make the processor implement it.

But what's forgotten is that for a pro brewer, knowing whether the reduced ester formation is due to the geometry of the vessel or due to the pressure of the liquid is a lot less important than following procedures that work. If pitching X quantity of good yeast into fermenter of Y shape and size and fermenting at temperature Z result in the right finished product, all that really matters is that they can faithfully repeat that process every time. Even for experienced or experimental brewers, sometimes having really awesome intuitive sense of how to create tasty recipes is a lot more important than knowing the science of fermenter geometry. It may be more important to focus on one thing than another.

Now, that doesn't mean there's no value in understanding. The brewer who really understands the science may have a better time trying to scale up pilot batches produced on smaller equipment to get the same flavors in big-scale brewing. Or, if perhaps they're getting different results than they expect to get on some batches, knowing the science behind what they're doing helps the better understand how to change their processes to get the result they want. In the engineer example, understanding the algorithm might help to better debug the code and better understand results that "don't look right", or may allow for certain optimization steps that increase efficiency or reduce cost in the system. At the homebrew level, understanding the science *might* help you design a fermenter if you decide you're the tinkering sort that enjoys that thing. Knowing the science might allow you create a fermenter that will work as well at 72 degrees as some of us get at 64 degrees, giving you the freedom to keep your batches outside a temp-controlled fridge during fermentation and thus saving money. There's value in understanding these things, but my point is that it's not exactly required to get the job done.

But when a professional brewer (or professional anything, frankly) tells you why you should do something, sometimes you have to ask whether they're telling you that because they know it works, FOR THEM, or because they REALLY deeply understand the science behind it. It's not always easy to tell the difference...

Excellent points, knowing something works doesn't mean we understand it. Sometimes we see a result, make an observation and take the quickest path to explanation. (you know the world IS flat, right?). I further agree that it isn't always necessary to understand! RESULTS, RESULTS, RESULTS... I like to say "all that matters is what hits the glass".

Also, I freely admit there are a lot of things I don't understand and I take the "I know it works and that works for me" attitude. If I get curious and investigate, or the subject comes up and I learn something, GREAT!

I would like to zero in on one thing you said, you really hit it out of the park with the statement about intuitive sense! While this thread has been largely technical, I am FAR more interested in drinking beers made by someone who has "the touch" than those made by a walking slide-rule!... I like the science, but the art comes first in my book!

Good beer makes me

 

[wailingguitar]

Not disagreeing with you at all, but there's the other side of the coin- a textbook understanding of why something works or how it should work means all of jack squat when it comes to the real world.

I think he kind of said that in the second and fourth paragraphs... and kind of in the first one too...

Did we read the same post?

 

[Qhrumphf]

I think he kind of said that in the second and fourth paragraphs... and kind of in the first one too...

Did we read the same post?

Seems he did. That'll learn me to read too quickly

I think the general point is that there's a balance between understanding and real-world know how.

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

Also, I freely admit there are a lot of things I don't understand and I take the "I know it works and that works for me" attitude. If I get curious and investigate, or the subject comes up and I learn something, GREAT!

Agreed. I have the sort of "I have to understand everything" personality, and sometimes I have to deliberately turn that off because trying to know everything will distract me from getting things done!

I would like to zero in on one thing you said, you really hit it out of the park with the statement about intuitive sense! While this thread has been largely technical, I am FAR more interested in drinking beers made by someone who has "the touch" than those made by a walking slide-rule!... I like the science, but the art comes first in my book!

Agreed. I think the guys at BMC have forgotten far more about brewing science than the guys at Stone. But I know which one gets my money

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

Not disagreeing with you at all, but there's the other side of the coin- a textbook understanding of why something works or how it should work means all of jack squat when it comes to the real world.

Exactly... Which is the basis for the old saying:

"Those who can't... Teach!"

 

[Piratwolf]

Exactly... Which is the basis for the old saying:

"Those who can't... Teach!"

That suggests that there are none who both "can" and also share how they can--which is an absurd statement. It's rare, but beautiful when it happens.