Everything I have learned is wrong.

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.
I always wait to make sure the proteins develop. That's homebrew 101.

The fact that this chump mentions the Lowcountry in his bio earns him a throatpunch next time I'm home
 
Why can't the idiots at magazines like these hire folks off of HBT to write their articles? Good thing they got this awesome classically-trained-chef-turned-food-editor to handle it. Because there aren't hundreds of people on this forum that could not only do a better job, but also include factual information in the piece.
 
The logic this guy uses is the exact same logic as saying 100% of your meals should come from McDonalds.

I don't know guys. I'm sure there's hundreds (thousands?) of people on this site who have made homebrews that didn't suck. That didn't taste watery, buttery, flat or soapy. That people enjoyed making and drinking. That's all fine, but the guy who wrote that article lives on a boat.
 
If the Editorial staff at Esquire magazine knew anything at all about homebrewing, they would have revised the article. The author simply needs to be enlightened regarding the pleasures of a well made beer crafted not for profit, but for pleasure. He is the editor of a foodie magazine out of Charleston, SC.

http://thelocalpalate.com/personalities/chris-dudley/

Since it doesn't seem like he's had decent homebrew, perhaps we should send him some?
 
I say we send him a certain special someone to give him a punch in the berries.
 
5 Reasons Why Your Writing Sucks and No One Takes You Seriously
(Your half-baked click-bait fart of an article sucks. You probably won't realize why even after we tell you)

5 Reasons Why You Have No Integrity and Are Writing For Esquire


Just by the hyperlink (combo of esquire and phrases that grind my gears) I didn't open the link.

Only because I would have the exact response you did.

I ain't killing this buzz I have. Shouldn't have to pay as much as I just did to get a buzzy off Boston lagers
 
In this Age of Artisan — where everything from tequila to tap handles must be handmade and small-batch — we understand the urge to do all things involved in the alcohol intake process yourself. Grow your lemons and limes on your Brooklyn rooftop. Freeze your water into blocks then chisel out the cubes in shapes of perfect spheres or princess-cut diamonds. Set up a makeshift science lab in your kitchen to synthesize your own tonics and sodas. Plant your own agave, squash your own grapes, carve your own swizzle sticks. And whatever you do, brew your own beer; PBR just isn't indie enough. Remember this, though, as you're cooking up your precious Dave-weiser: it's most likely going to suck. Big batch brewing is successful because it works—it's reliable and consistent. Your friends know what they're going to get when they crack open their High Lifes; your stuff is unknown. It tastes different every time you make it, it smells like bleach, and there might be bugs in it. So don't blame the imbibers. It's your own fault. Here's why your beer sucks and how to fix it.

1. Your beer sucks because it's flat.
A lack of effervescence is a fatal flaw for beer. If there are no bubbles when you pop the top, it's probably because you didn't step on the gas: as yeast converts sugar to alcohol, carbon dioxide is also produced. If there's a lack of gas in the finished product, try adding small quantities of priming sugar during bottling. If you seal them up tight, the carbon dioxide stays inside until the bottle is opened. Pop, fizz.


WE RECOMMEND
The Peak Age for Alcohol Consumption Is Older Than You Think
2. Your beer sucks because it's dirty.
Are you working with plastic? Because plastic scratches and breaks in tiny, unseen ways. And these microscopic, hard-to-clean flaws make fine homes for bacteria. That means something other than the intended yeast is fermenting your beer, so spend some money and upgrade your equipment. It's not just at home, either; commercial beer that comes out of a less-than-clean tap with less-than-clean lines can also contain off flavors.

3. Your beer sucks because it's not like it was the last time.
It takes a while to develop a formula that works. Do you think the people at Milwaukee's Best made magic the first time out? The more beer you make, the closer you should get to finding the sweet spot, so to speak. Focus on switching up your brewing and fermentation techniques, play around with the yeast, and keep your sanitary practices on point.

4. Your beer sucks because it's watery.
You're quick with the bottle opener. Just because your beer looks done and is all sorts of foamy doesn't mean it's ready. What you see as fully carbonated just might not be. In general, you need to leave the capped beers alone for three weeks for the proteins to develop, so slow down.

5. Your beer sucks because it's soapy.
Now you're waiting too long. Keeping beer in its primary fermenting vessel after the process is complete can cause oily or soapy flavors. Transfer your brew to a second container instead of aging it the fermenter for a long time. Drink them fast, age them slow.

Chris Dudley, a classically-trained-chef-turned-food-editor, lives on a boat in Charleston, South Carolina. His goal is twofold: bring Low Country cooking to the big city and one day find a box of money.

He could have a stellar career writing ads for Budweiser.
 
Maybe he tried homebrewing, didn't do some research into how it should be done, and came out with some bad beers he would share with friends. The one day one of his friends snaps and gives him a list of why his homebrews sucks, and the author thought it applied to all homebrews.

That or he is trying to hook up with the Foodbabe.
 
Just a second guys, I'll be right back, I have to go check my fermenters for bugs.

EDIT: Dammit, found 3 more this time. Those suckers are persistent. Oh well, at least SOMEONE likes my home brew!
 
The article is crap, but there are things to be learned in it. Most of the points are accurate. You don't want those things in your beer.

The problem is, he gives extremely limited advice on how to correct the problem.

Perhaps he should have wrote an article pointing out possible brewing problems, like he did, then follow that up with advice on HOW TO FIND WAYS TO FIX THOSE PROBLEMS. Or simply suggesting one of the MANY websites and books devoted to helping people make great beer in their own home.

Nobody gets it right the first time, every time. It takes a while for most people to get a consistent process and hone the craft. Just like people aren't always going to cook consistent, delicious meals in their kitchen until they practice.
 
If the Editorial staff at Esquire magazine knew anything at all about homebrewing, they would have revised the article. The author simply needs to be enlightened regarding the pleasures of a well made beer crafted not for profit, but for pleasure. He is the editor of a foodie magazine out of Charleston, SC.

http://thelocalpalate.com/personalities/chris-dudley/

Since it doesn't seem like he's had decent homebrew, perhaps we should send him some?

It sounds like he hasn't had a decent micro or regional brew either. Really? Talking about Beast as a great brew?

I'll give credit to the big breweries, they are AWESOME at extremely repeatable processes. They are also awesome at producing massive quantities of beer for probably as little $ per gallon compared to absolutely anyone else out there. They can also produce SUPER clean beers.

That is about it though.

I don't want well startched white shirts, I wan't my friggen party shirt!!!

I am slowly circling in on highly repeatable processes where I can make the same beer again and again and the difference between batches will be negligible. Things like good notes, consistent and repeatable steps in brewing as well as fermenting, temperature control on fermentation, etc.

But you know what...even when one batch varies from the previous, they are basically all damn good beer.

Oh, I've produced a couple of stinkers, but always because I've fundementally screwed up something BAD. Like mashing with cranberries which pushed the PH WAY too low and only got partial startch conversion and didn't realize it until bottling. But 96% of my brews have turned out from highly drinkable and decent beers, to excellent two thumbs up.
 
He's right. You do need priming sugar. You don't want bugs in your beer.

It was clearly written by somebody who has no clue about brewing. Almost like he google-searched some things, and just read the synopsis of the pages. :confused:
 
Five Reasons Your Arcticle Sucks and How to Fix It

1) This is basic knowledge to anyone who's bought a beer kit. The only way someone would NOT add priming sugar is if they flat out forgot or didn't follow instructions. You could have said, maybe to increase the primary sugar, ensure your beer going into bottles has some residual yeast that will make CO2, and to ensure they get a proper aging period in a warm area away from sunlight.

2) You do realize all draft lines are made with some sort of plastic, correct? And there is nothing wrong with using plastic based equipment, but you do have to take extra care and replace it more frequently. You could have said, ensure you are doing both cleaning and sanitizing with a food grade non rinse sanitizer and recommended a great cleaning solution like PBW to remove soil before sanitization.

3) Your article sucks because it gives conflicting advice to your readers. You say to be consistent, then immediately say to change up fermentation times and temps because you need to experiment. You could have said to take detailed notes, and only change 1 thing at a time between batches to be able to track the differences. Like, using citra instead of amarillo for your dry hop in your house IPA or fermenting at 68F instead of 66F with S-05.

4) Your article sucks because you lack basic understanding of science. We do not wait 3 weeks for proteins to develop or for beer to become less watery. Many brewer's drink kegged beer in less than 3 weeks; additional aging time may develop flavors and mellow others, but we are not concerned with protein development. I think you are confusing this for natural carbonation derived from priming in the bottle, in which a 3 week period is the rule of thumb. You could have said "your beer sucks because you are impatient" and left it at that.

5) Your arcticle sucks because this just isn't true. To develop serious off flavors from sitting on yeast would take a very long time, and using a secondary can actually be detrimental, especially for new brewers who may not know to take the extra steps to ensure their secondary doesn't oxidize the beer or become contaminated. You could have probably just made a different point altogether for this one.
 
I was googling and came across the Esquire article and as I was reading the scathing and accurate comments that readers had posted about it I immediately wondered if someone on HBT had started a thread. I am not disappointed. Esquire must really be struggling if they allow this kind of rubbish to be posted under their masthead.

The internet: freeing everyone but especially Chris Dudley to reveal their ignorance to the rest of the planet.
 
The Article said:
Do you think the people at Milwaukee's Best made magic the first time out?

No, no they didn't. They still haven't (unless pulling a urine specimen out of a hat qualifies as magic).
 
I actually took the article for what I thought it was.....humor. It's actually telling people (which goes unsaid sometimes) why their home brew sucks. Which....quite frankly....a lot of it does. Every suggestion he makes is true. I've had a lot of good homebrew sent my way over the years, and...well, I've had a lot of crap sent my way too. So, color me purple and tar me in feathers, but I thought it was quite informative.
 
I really wish there was a comments section on the article page. Then we could give him "feedback". I think I would at least enjoy that part of the article. Haha -- Edit -- just noticed there IS a comments section. Time to read them!
 
This article is pretty bad. Newbie homebrewers beer sucks mostly for the following reasons:

1) Fermentation temperature was too high. A lot of new brewers think that their 65° basement is perfect for fermentation, but they're wrong, mostly because they never bothered to find out if the temperature in their basements fluctuate. Surprise! It does. And your beer is going to have a good deal of fusel alcohols in it. Your beer will get immensely better as soon as you get a proper fermentation chamber and a temperature controller.

2) Impatience. Constantly fussing over the fermenting beer. Checking it to see if fermentation is complete. Each time taking a sample, risking infection. Racking into bottles before fermentation is complete, creating over-carbonated beers, which suffer from carbolic acid. Makes the beer taste nasty. Leave the beer ALONE for three or four weeks until you're more experienced and know when it's actually done.

3) Using inadequate water. The old adage, "if your tap water tastes fine, then it's probably fine to use for brewing" is not really the best advice. Many municipalities these days use chloramines to treat their water, and chloramines will make your beer taste really bad. There's a very simple remedy: campden tablets. Use a half of a tablet for every five gallons of brewing water and you're good to go. Some people say you need only a quarter tablet, but it's really hard to go overboard with campden tablets, so may as well go with the half tablet. They're pretty cheap. If your municipality still uses chlorine then the tablets will take care of that too. Even if your water is chlorine and chloramine free the campden tablet will not affect flavor. It's a really cheap insurance policy. Water chemistry is definitely the most complicated part of brewing, but the first thing you should try if your beers aren't good (and you've fixed the fermentation problems above) is: use campden tablets or use bottled spring water and see if that makes a difference. It probably will.
 
The best part of this article is the comments. Everybody starts railing on the guy and then it starts breaking down into the commenters arguing over the correct way to do things. Kind of like what goes on here.
 
Back
Top