Hello All,
I just wanted to share a question that's been on my mind lately: How much of what we do really makes a difference in the finished quality of our beers? How much is conventional wisdom taken as gospel? What factors are we still underestimating?
Let me preface this by saying that I am very comfortable with my process. I am sure many of you reading this feel the same way about your respective processes. That's the whole point!
Hot side aeration was once an absolute, hard-and-fast "avoid or you might as well dump the batch". Now, it's considered essentially a myth.
Fly sparging was the only way to do it; batch sparging unheard of, and not sparging at all was heresy!
The vorlauf is held almost universally as necessary to prevent husky flavors and help clarify your beer. Now, UC Davis anecdotally reports that it doesn't seem to make any difference whatsoever.
Chilling the wort fast after the boil has been looked on as one of the most difficult parts of brewing great beer. Our Australian brothers and sisters have followed a different path.
Trub in the fermentor was forbidden. Clear wort, clear beer, right? Small scale tests have had a hard time showing a difference.
Yeast pitching rate calculation has been hailed as the greatest improvement in homebrew since fermentation temperature control. Yet now we see the best of the best relegating it to a side note, less important than which nutrient you use.
Rehydrating dry yeast is still unresolved. Theory and practice don't seem to jibe.
Doing a secondary was once considered a necessity. Some say it's a waste of time.
Where have thousands of years of practice gotten us? I thoroughly wish to avoid igniting arguments about any particular issue above; that's not my point. Rather, I hope to address the state of brewing science as a whole. How can we have gotten so far and yet really know so few facts?
What are your thoughts?
I just wanted to share a question that's been on my mind lately: How much of what we do really makes a difference in the finished quality of our beers? How much is conventional wisdom taken as gospel? What factors are we still underestimating?
Let me preface this by saying that I am very comfortable with my process. I am sure many of you reading this feel the same way about your respective processes. That's the whole point!
Hot side aeration was once an absolute, hard-and-fast "avoid or you might as well dump the batch". Now, it's considered essentially a myth.
Fly sparging was the only way to do it; batch sparging unheard of, and not sparging at all was heresy!
The vorlauf is held almost universally as necessary to prevent husky flavors and help clarify your beer. Now, UC Davis anecdotally reports that it doesn't seem to make any difference whatsoever.
Chilling the wort fast after the boil has been looked on as one of the most difficult parts of brewing great beer. Our Australian brothers and sisters have followed a different path.
Trub in the fermentor was forbidden. Clear wort, clear beer, right? Small scale tests have had a hard time showing a difference.
Yeast pitching rate calculation has been hailed as the greatest improvement in homebrew since fermentation temperature control. Yet now we see the best of the best relegating it to a side note, less important than which nutrient you use.
Rehydrating dry yeast is still unresolved. Theory and practice don't seem to jibe.
Doing a secondary was once considered a necessity. Some say it's a waste of time.
Where have thousands of years of practice gotten us? I thoroughly wish to avoid igniting arguments about any particular issue above; that's not my point. Rather, I hope to address the state of brewing science as a whole. How can we have gotten so far and yet really know so few facts?
What are your thoughts?