Same here, people get so bent out of shape when you tell them this or that technique is pointless. Me? I'm excited when I realize I can knock 30 mins off my boil day by eliminating some extra step that adds nothing of value. Obviously there are lots of things you cannot cut corners on or it compromises the end product, but otherwise? Game on.I really don't have a dog in this fight; I just like to stir the pot sometimes.
A lot of folks on this board pay lip service to the "brew what you like" philosophy, but are the first to get their Underoos in a wad when somebody suggests that they've found the true path to enlightenment.
The issue comes in when you start telling others that Brulo has debunked good brewing practices. Just because him and his alcoholic buddies don’t have any taste buds left doesn’t mean good brewing practices are for naught.
So tell me then, why should we listen to you and ignore him?
Honestly I think a lot of this stems from the fact that making good beer is dead freking simple.
Well saidI don't care who you listen to. But if you tell me or anyone else that poor brewing practices are ok because of Brulo i'm going to loudly disagree. At best him and his team of alcoholic drinking buddies masquerading as qualified judging panels is entertainment, at worst it's holding people back from making better beer.
Like i said before, if you like short and shoddy that's cool. If you like the details, that's cool too. Brew how you like.
Totally disagree. Making drinkable beer is pretty simple. Making good beer requires a good bit of effort. Great beer, the stuff that rivals or exceeds successful commercial beer, on the other hand is difficult to make. It requires a lot more knowledge, equipment, and process. It's fine if you don't aspire to this level, but it does exist.
So do you know this man personally and that's why you insult him? I seriously doubt it. Sounds like you're passing judgment on someone you've never met because he's disproven some of your nonsense brewing myths and you're butthurt and/or jealous over it.I don't care who you listen to. But if you tell me or anyone else that poor brewing practices are ok because of Brulo i'm going to loudly disagree. At best him and his team of alcoholic drinking buddies masquerading as qualified judging panels is entertainment, at worst it's holding people back from making better beer.
If you bothered to read some of the findings rather than just vitriol you'd know that his findings are varied, sometimes they support the common 'wisdom' on this or that prcoess, sometimes they don't. I don't think he's advocating for sloppy technique or rushing things that shouldn't be rushed at all, but the reality is that a lot of what YOU believe to be gospel is complete and utter BS (at worst) or a game of diminishing returns (at best)Like i said before, if you like short and shoddy that's cool. If you like the details, that's cool too. Brew how you like.
Judging by your shitty attitude, I'm pretty sure you can't muster any of themTotally disagree. Making drinkable beer is pretty simple. Making good beer requires a good bit of effort. Great beer, the stuff that rivals or exceeds successful commercial beer, on the other hand is difficult to make. It requires a lot more knowledge, equipment, and process. It's fine if you don't aspire to this level, but it does exist.
I don't care who you listen to. But if you tell me or anyone else that poor brewing practices are ok because of Brulo i'm going to loudly disagree. At best him and his team of alcoholic drinking buddies masquerading as qualified judging panels is entertainment, at worst it's holding people back from making better beer.
Like i said before, if you like short and shoddy that's cool. If you like the details, that's cool too. Brew how you like.
Totally disagree. Making drinkable beer is pretty simple. Making good beer requires a good bit of effort. Great beer, the stuff that rivals or exceeds successful commercial beer, on the other hand is difficult to make. It requires a lot more knowledge, equipment, and process. It's fine if you don't aspire to this level, but it does exist.
I definitely lean to your “side” of this debate, but what’s the point of personal attacks on the brulosophy guys? Don’t they use local brew clubs for the A/B analysis?
I haven't heard the podcast with Russian River so a few questions. Did they confirm during the Podcast that they agree that all the extra thing's professionals do as standard practices was useless and therefore they don't do them? Would you say you believe that Russian River was trying to get some tips from the brulosophy crew on how they can improve there beers? Do you believe they read the brulosophy results and making changes to there process based on brulosophys findings to make a better end product? Or do you think it's possible they were asked to speak on the podcast and accepted and that it had nothing to do with there exbeeriments? CheersIt's clearly jealousy. They have their own site, their own experiments, their own podcast where they often host moguls in the brewing community (e.g. the Yakima hop dudes, the founder of Russian River, BJCP judges etc). Petty people need to knock others down to feel better about themselves. Its pathetic but not uncommon unfortunately
It's clearly jealousy. They have their own site, their own experiments, their own podcast where they often host moguls in the brewing community (e.g. the Yakima hop dudes, the founder of Russian River, BJCP judges etc). Petty people need to knock others down to feel better about themselves. Its pathetic but not uncommon unfortunately
My knock is not really so much on them as much is it people around here who quote it as proof of something when it’s not.
I'm solidly a non-pro, but I've visited a number of breweries and here is my take on this. A brewery follows the general flow of FV --> maturation tank --> package. Homebrewing practices naturally copied this and established the concept of primary --> secondary --> package (bottle/keg).
Over time, mantra changed and the transfer to secondary was deemed an unnecessary risk. So now we have primary --> package. But we all know that beer needs to condition somewhere. So where's the maturation tank?
And the answer is that for many, it's the FV - the primary. Hence many people are keeping their beer in the FV well after the 3-7 day fermentation is done. If bottling, there's also the factor of ensuring yeast completion without taking a million hydrometer samples. So these folks err on the side of caution.
For those who exclusively keg like me, we can treat the keg as both maturation tank and package. (Recently I have been fermenting in the same keg as well, but that's another story.)
So the simple procedure would be to transfer to the keg (a.k.a. maturation tank) at or near the actual 3-7 day completion of primary fermentation, moving it to cold storage - ideally in place for serving - begin carbonating immediately, but do not drink for at least two weeks. After that period, the keg becomes a package. To me this is a nice adaptation of pro practices to homebrewing, if you have the proper equipment.
most of my beers are in the fermenter for 7 days. Even big beers I condition in the keg. There is no point imo keeping a beer in the fermenter for 21 days. Heck, I do my lagers now in 10 days.
Enter your email address to join: