New School, Old School, and Superstition

[Wolfbrau]

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?

 

[orangehero]

I think you should research some of your claims a little more. Also there's a difference between what works for commercial brewing, what is studied and published in peer reviewed brewing literature, and what works for hobbyist homebrewers and the information and anecdotal reports spread on messageboards. On the homebrew level a lot of the advances have to do with access to better equipment and most importantly better, fresh ingredients.

 

[Wolfbrau]

Don't misunderstand, I'm not making any particular claim. I will assure you that I've heard some really smart people say both sides of each of the above. That's what I'm getting at.

 

[Agate]

I think orangehero hit it on the head... What's done on the commercial level is very well studied and understood, as that's where the money is. Why put the effort into studying what is necessary on the homebrew level? We try to apply what the professionals do, and slowly realize what is and is not necessary. It's tough, because by far the bulk of us are amateur hobbyists, and going off of what has worked for us from experience. Two experienced people can easily have two different results, so which one is right?

 

[unionrdr]

Yeah, it all comes down to what works for you. You can secondary if you like, but unless you're oaking or adding fruit, you can just dry hop in primary when it's done & cleared. Or if you're not dry hopping, just let it clear in primary, then go to keg or bottling bucket. When I rehydrate dry yeast & pitch it at high krausen, I've had beers start visibly fermenting in some 3 hours. Rehydrating dry yeast seems to save more yeast cells than pitching dry into wort, That's the theory anyway. When done right, it can cut lag time. I've found that my efficiency went up with the dunk sparge (batch sparge?) vs just putting the bag of grains in a colander on top of the BK & pouring the sparge water over them. I like to strain the wort into the fermenter to aerate it more easily & get less trub in the fermenter come bottling day. Less trub equals less beer lost to trub at that point & more bottles of beer. i typically get 53-56 bottles from a 5 gallon batch that way. My 2c anyway. Again, it's all in what works for you with your own experiments from what we put forth on here.

 

[Weezy]

Some of the things we spout as gospel do border on comical but none of them are what you've listed. Read more.

 

[progmac]

I generally agree with the OP. Having listened to homebrewers talk and talk and talk and talk and talk.....I think of the old grad school saying, "the plural of anecdote is not data." It's sort of vexing because so many homebrewers are formally trained scientists that seem to forget their scientific training whenever something goes 'right.'

Part of what complicates everything is that no brewing variables exist in a vacuum. For example, say Joe's beer has "that homebrew taste" and Joe quadruples his yeast pitch and "that homebrew taste" disappears. So Joe's conclusion is, "quadruple your yeast pitch!" But it is quite possible that to some degree this solution actually masks underlying problems of O2 or nutrient-starved wort causing the yeast to release some off-flavors during their growth phase. And I'm not saying that pitching tons of yeast shouldn't be a tool in our toolkit, but it should be just that, one of many tools that we have.

 

[Hello]

A few ideas I was given when I started were followed but not all.
I never used secondary unless I was adding fruit, oak, bulk aging, etc. I stopped rehydrating my yeast. I never worried about trub in the fermentor and was never told to worry. I do vorlauf and always will. I never fly sparge but consider it from time to time as my efficiency is poor. I was told to chill as quickly as possible, I still try.

I spin around 7 times before I pitch my yeast, every time. No issues here.

 

[progmac]

I spin around 7 times before I pitch my yeast, every time. No issues here.

I used to spin around 4 times but now I spin around 7 times, too. My fermentations are always vigorous now.

 

[Agate]

I used to spin around 4 times but now I spin around 7 times, too. My fermentations are always vigorous now.

Which direction do you guys spin? I might be doing this wrong.

 

[progmac]

Which direction do you guys spin? I might be doing this wrong.

I've always spun clockwise at a rate of about one rotation per 5 seconds. I'd be curious to know what others are doing as well.

 

[Hello]

Which direction do you guys spin? I might be doing this wrong.

Counterclockwise, felt more natural.

 

[unionrdr]

I do an apache war dance to scare the nasties away from my wort before pitching the yeast virgins into it.

 

[eric19312]

OP I think you would like to see a list of proven best practices. I don't think that is actually possible with the number of variables that go into making a single batch of beer.

Quality has two meanings which tend to be confused. Quality can mean good better best. But it can also mean "floral hop aroma", or "golden with a rocky head that persists to the bottom of the glass", or "FG 1.008", or "shelf stable for 4 months", or "vegan".

There are only 3 steps to making beer: making wort, fermenting wort, packaging beer. Within each of these steps there are a multitude of choices made by the brewer, all of which contribute to but probably don't individually determine the quality of the product of the step.

One key decision made by the brewer in each step is specifying the quality of the inputs to that step. "Best" is not a specification. If the step in question is fermentation of the wort the inputs are the unfermented wort and the yeast. And the quality of the unfermented wort can include things like SG, fermentability, color, flavor and aroma, clarity, nutrient profile, oxygen content, temperature, clarity, trub content....

Calling something like wort chilling a superstition because somebody has figured out a way to get the quality of unfermented wort they need for their fermenting the wort step without chilling just doesn't make sense.

 

[bernardsmith]

Strikes me - and I am nothing but a total beginner at brewing beer although have been making wines for a few years now - that there are all kinds of assumptions used and invoked with very little hard scientific evidence (controlling variables, double blind testing). For example, it is certainly unclear to me how someone making 5 gallons of beer in a kettle has to deal with the same kind of environmental issues confronting a brewer making 50 or 500 barrels of the same beer and their need to control cooling temperatures and yeast colony size and autolysis in fermenters with those kinds of volumes. Which is not to say that the two processes do not need to be very similar. It is simply to suggest that they are not as self evidently similar as brewers frequently assume and that rigorous testing would either confirm this - or would suggest that significant differences in scale in fact can highlight significant differences in practice.

 

[boydster]

I add two drops of newt blood from a vial I fill on the eve of the harvest moon every year, then wait until the krausen falls before adding a baby's teardrop.

You guys spin? That's just silly.

 

[NathPowe]

I add a back-flip between spins 5 and 6 if I'm looking for a bump in attenuation. You guys are doing this naked right?

 

[boydster]

If you want brewing science applicable to the home brew level, check out any of the following, then keep venturing down the rabbit hole as you find more people contributing data:

Sean Terrill
Braukaiser
Woodland Brew
BKYeast

That should get you started.

 

[progmac]

At the risk of being flamed, I find much of the homebrew science and experimentation interesting, but fundamentally lacking. I think Braukaiser is the exception. Rather than rehash an old discussion, I'll quote Kristen England's comments from an older AHA thread:

As for the 'good enough' theory of home brewing 'experimentation' that really needs to stop. Nearly all of the points I list are very simple things to cover. Nothing that requires a ton of ability or research. Additionally, I haven't met a single home brewer that compares their wares to commercial products. We can't have it both ways. We can't say that our beers are better than the commercial thing but in the same breath say that we aren't held to any standard of experimentation.

The topic of discussion above was an experiment where they compared a standard commercial pitch of old slurry with an underpitch of the same slurry. Rather than the conclusion being don't underpitch old slurry in wort conditions x, y, and z, the conclusion was, 'always make a starter!'

 

[fartinmartin]

Hang on , all you spinners need to qualify what hemisphere you are in .

 

[unionrdr]

All this just goes to show that while certain parts of the process are to a certain specification to the particular brew involved, how one gets there can be open to interpretation. That's why there's so much discussion/debate in various threads concerning a particular brew &/or part of the process. I may do it one way, but the next person may do it a bit different way. Are both wrong? Are both correct? That depends on how it relates to how you brew beer. This is the paradox where home brewing is concerned. Not always so at commercial levels. So commercial beers by definition can't always be used as a yardstick to measure a home brew's quality, or lack thereof. The basic processes are similar, but different due to the scales & repeatability involved.

 

[cernst151]

I love this post Wolfbrau. I often wonder about these things myself. We, both homebrewers and non-homebrewers, tend to take so many things as fact thanks to frequent repetition. Despite all the joking responses (which I've also gotten great joy out of) I like the way you're thinking. I'm also comfortable with my process and happy with my results but also like to experiment with certain aspects to see what happens.

I for one was very surprised to learn that Australians (and now others) have been getting good results without chilling their wort at all. I still chill but as much as anything it's to get the beer going sooner. I start the chill out of the rain barrel then use tap water to finish the chill and put that tap water back into the rain barrel to avoid waste. I'll admit I've never done a side by side comparison of 2 identical beers 1 chilled and 1 not to see if there's a difference. Maybe I'll do that next. As for clarity, my last 2 batches I chilled fast but forgot the Irish moss and they're the cloudiest beers I've had since I started brewing.

I never worry about trub and I usually do a secondary but I'm not sold on the necessity.

I brewed a lot (probably 40 or so) of batches without starters and only on the biggest did I even add a second yeast pack and never had any noticeable off flavors or negative impacts. It's only recently that I've started doing starters consistently but haven't noticed any change in my end results. I have to say I'm not entirely sold on it. Seems like a lot of hassle for no benefit.

I always rehydrate my dry yeast for beer but I'm a bit skeptical of that too because I do wine as well and the instructions for the wine specifically say not to rehydrate. Just pitch it on top. I don't know why rehydration would be mandatory for beer but verboten for wine.

I heard for a long time that you should NEVER squeeze your grains or you'll get tannins in your beer and followed that for quite a while and was always sad about the lost potential wort. I do BIAB and now always squeeze my bag as hard as I can and have never noticed a hint of tannins. That's one "fact" of homebrewing I feel I've solidly discarded.

I don't have a fermentation chamber so it's not uncommon for me to go above the recommended ferm temp. Usually I'm able to keep it close but several times I've gone as high as 10 degrees F too high (usually only for a day before I notice and put it in an ice bath) and never noticed a problem.

So I'm with you Wolfbrau. I think we should all be open to learning that our hard and fast rules (secondary, chilling, starters, sack squeezing, etc) might actually be as useful as spinning 7 times naked under a full moon while things we're not even considering (width of brew kettle, time to get from mashout to boil, Barry White music played by your fermentation bucket to encourage yeast reproduction, etc) may be the next frontier in stepping up our product.

 

[bernardsmith]

what exactly causes tannins to be extracted through squeezing? Is this a mechanical issue or a chemical one? Why wouldn't the weight of a large batch of grain extract tannins if the cause was mechanical? And if the extraction was caused chemically then what is the catalyst that causes the extraction when you squeeze the grains? No irony intended - just curious.

 

[Wolfbrau]

I must admit I'm pleasantly surprised at the discussion in this thread. I was concerned someone would pick one item out and, wham-bam, digress into a flame war.

Good on yall! Great responses so far!

 

[Agate]

what exactly causes tannins to be extracted through squeezing? Is this a mechanical issue or a chemical one? Why wouldn't the weight of a large batch of grain extract tannins if the cause was mechanical? And if the extraction was caused chemically then what is the catalyst that causes the extraction when you squeeze the grains? No irony intended - just curious.

None, I think this one is incorrect. If squeezing releases tannins, it's because there's another issue like incorrect temperature or ph, and squeezing releases more into the wort. Correlation, not causation. These are good things to question!

 

[JohnSand]

I'm always open to innovation and experimentation. If there is an easier way to get the same results, I'm on it. But I find that most brewers are more open minded than not. It's true that you can always find a response basically equal to:"If you're not doing it my way, you're wrong." But those tend to be the minority, instead answers range from "RDWHAHB" to "That might result in off flavors".
Keep experimenting, keep posting. I don't ask for double blind testing, if enough brewers try it with success, that's enough for me.
By the way, the earth is spinning so fast that I have trouble hanging on.
Which is why I don't whirlpool.

 

[Yooper]

what exactly causes tannins to be extracted through squeezing? Is this a mechanical issue or a chemical one? Why wouldn't the weight of a large batch of grain extract tannins if the cause was mechanical? And if the extraction was caused chemically then what is the catalyst that causes the extraction when you squeeze the grains? No irony intended - just curious.

It's not mechanical. It's pH related, and exacerbated by high temperatures.

That's why we can do decoctions, even boiling grains- it's temperature related to an extent, but only in the cases of high pH.

If you squeeze the grainbag, AND the pH of the mash is too high, tannins will be extracted. Of course, if you don't squeeze the grainbag and the pH is too high, especially at a higher temperature (mash temp or higher), tannins will be extracted as well. So, it's not the mechanics of the squeezing, but instead the pH and temperature.

 

[Teromous]

I like reading about experiments and innovations that homebrewers make, but I often wonder if people buck tradition simply for the sake of making a little noise. Creating new dogma isn't any more revolutionary than adhering to an old one.

 

[bbrim]

I will add my 2c on 2 potential myths and then perhaps ramble about some nonsense.
As to the no-chill method. I think this can work perfectly fine, however I have most definitely had DMS show its ugly in head in at least two beers. Both beers contained a very high percentage pilsner malt and I only boiled 60 minutes due to my ignorance. On both beers I was unable to chill below 90F in 30 minutes. There was so much sulfur the beers were undrinkable, in fact I have a 5 year old bottle of one of those beers that I fear opening. Since looking into the origin of that problem I always run a 90 minute boil with Pilsner malt and make sure I chill quickly. Using Pale ale malt as a base malt may eliminate this risk. Again, my experience is only anecdotal but it is supported by materials written by George Fix among other commercial brewing authors.
The other issue is tannin extraction, and Yooper already hit this. High pH combined with high temps can lead to tannin extraction. When I got into all grain brewing I didn't pay much attention to my water while seeking to max out my efficiency. I approached 90% efficiency using a fine crush and infusion step mashes with a very slow sparking process. My mash pH must have been at a reasonable level to hit those numbers but my sparge pH was totally unchecked and certainly went too high (I brew with fairly alkaline water, as I know now). These beers were so tannic they were undrinkable. Worse than the DMS rich beers that were not properly chilled. I dumped multiple batches.
I have my doubts about the need for O2 injection in order to ensure proper fermentation but I get a lot of aeration going into the fermenter and rarely brew over 1.050 (brewing science clearly opposes my position here). On top of that I have high pitch rates so my yeast may be a bit more tolerant of this condition. No science here, just a process that works for me and I do like modest beers.
This is an interesting post because we are all learning how these mysteries actually work. The quality of home-brew truly is impressive and discussions like this one really contribute. Like others have said, we learn what works for each of us. When we do find faults in our beers we can look to each other for answers as to why that particular flaw has appeared. We are all better off for that.

 

[elkshadow]

Now this is a great thread and I will follow it. I started brewing in 1994 and I've seen a lot of bullspit come and go. I remember a couple from back then.

Adding plain white sugar makes your beer really hot like gasoline.

Using malt extract for bottling primer makes a more dense, creamier head than using plain sugar. This one was told to me by a LHBS owner. (I think I've actually argued this one in the past lol)

I agree with the people saying there are so many variables that a set of best practices is impossible to define.

I always heard that spinning 8.5 times was actually the secret but I tried it and after that last half turn my floccin' beer disappeared!!! (then I realized it was just behind me duh) Never doing that again!!!

 

[eric19312]

All this just goes to show that while certain parts of the process are to a certain specification to the particular brew involved, how one gets there can be open to interpretation. That's why there's so much discussion/debate in various threads concerning a particular brew &/or part of the process. I may do it one way, but the next person may do it a bit different way. Are both wrong? Are both correct? That depends on how it relates to how you brew beer. This is the paradox where home brewing is concerned. Not always so at commercial levels. So commercial beers by definition can't always be used as a yardstick to measure a home brew's quality, or lack thereof. The basic processes are similar, but different due to the scales & repeatability involved.

FWIW I have visited a number of craft breweries and a couple mega breweries. I can say that the differences in processes carried out at these breweries seem every bit as varied as what I see in home breweries. My point is that most (all) of the hard science in brewing is targeted at commercial breweries and even with that science there the idea of best practices is open to interpretation.

 

[cernst151]

Now this is a great thread and I will follow it. I started brewing in 1994 and I've seen a lot of bullspit come and go. I remember a couple from back then.

Adding plain white sugar makes your beer really hot like gasoline.

Using malt extract for bottling primer makes a more dense, creamier head than using plain sugar. This one was told to me by a LHBS owner. (I think I've actually argued this one in the past lol)
...

I've actually moved to only using DME for priming. When I first heard about this as an option I did 3 batches of different styles of beer and on each I split the batch at bottling and bottled half with priming sugar and half with light DME. This was probably my most scientifically performed and tested experiment in hombrewing (since it's so easy to control the variables) and every person who tried them side by side said the DME gave a creamier, denser head and more professional mouthfeel.

Argue that one as much as you like I'm never going back to priming sugar.

 

[cernst151]

what exactly causes tannins to be extracted through squeezing? Is this a mechanical issue or a chemical one? Why wouldn't the weight of a large batch of grain extract tannins if the cause was mechanical? And if the extraction was caused chemically then what is the catalyst that causes the extraction when you squeeze the grains? No irony intended - just curious.

What I read (can't remember where) when I first started experimenting with sack squeezing is that at commercial scale the weight of the tons of grains on the top can squeeze out tannins mechanically from the grains at the bottom. Of course we could never apply tons of pressure on a homebrew scale so the only things we have to worry about are heat and PH.

At least until we learn later that we don't need to worry about heat and PH and it's actually all about evaporation rate and tidal forces from the moon.

 

[Remmy]

A few ideas I was given when I started were followed but not all.
I never used secondary unless I was adding fruit, oak, bulk aging, etc. I stopped rehydrating my yeast. I never worried about trub in the fermentor and was never told to worry. I do vorlauf and always will. I never fly sparge but consider it from time to time as my efficiency is poor. I was told to chill as quickly as possible, I still try.

I spin around 7 times before I pitch my yeast, every time. No issues here.

That's because you're mashing for 60 minutes and YOU NEED TO MASH FOR 90! Gosh, everyone knows that. /newschool

 

[bernardsmith]

I agree with the people saying there are so many variables that a set of best practices is impossible to define.

But surely this is not simply about "best practices" or "good practices" but about the science that undergirds brewing. Good practice and best practice revolve around the art of brewing but the science of brewing is presumably subject to laws of chemistry and micro-biology and physics and the like. Those don't change. Our knowledge of those processes may and certainly my own knowledge of brewing science can be written on the back of a postage stamp and that would still leave plenty of space but the chemical and and biological processes on this planet are quite immutable, are they not?

If - all other things being equal - high pH (low acidity) allows tannins to leach out then low acidity allows tannins to leach out and good practice (or best practice) would be to employ ways that increase the acidity of the wort (or water) or to inhibit the leaching of tannins even when acidity is low or to use grains with inherently low levels of tannins. But whatever "good practices" are used the underlying issue would be to understand the cause of - in this example - the extraction of tannins and a preference to inhibit their excessive (however that is defined) utilization.
And I say all this as a rank beginner to brewing but a naive and committed believer in the science AND the art of fermenting fruits and grains.

 

[stu4stew]

I think the biggest thing to remember is to take as accurate of notes as possible as often as possible

 

[elkshadow]

I've actually moved to only using DME for priming. When I first heard about this as an option I did 3 batches of different styles of beer and on each I split the batch at bottling and bottled half with priming sugar and half with light DME. This was probably my most scientifically performed and tested experiment in hombrewing (since it's so easy to control the variables) and every person who tried them side by side said the DME gave a creamier, denser head and more professional mouthfeel.

Argue that one as much as you like I'm never going back to priming sugar.

And this just proves the original point of this thread. After all the [Sagan] millions and millions and millions [/Sagan] of gallons of beer that have been produced and consumed there is still no fact-based consensus on most of what we do as brewers. You believe that DME gives you smaller bubbles and better head and I'm happy for you (not being snarky I truly am) and I have primed with everything I can think of and haven't noticed any difference at all.

I can find lots of people and sources reporting there's no advantage to DME and I can find the same saying what you're saying. I think that's the point of the thread. The OP's original questions:

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?

Where have thousands of years of practice gotten us?

How can we have gotten so far and yet really know so few facts?

Very interesting topic IMO

Edited to add: When people ask me if brewing is hard, I tell them the hardest part of brewing is arguing about it on the internet.

 

[unionrdr]

Low PH, so far as neutral of 5.2 is concerned, doesn't leach tannins. A little higher or lower than 5.2 seems fine in my experiences. But high PH is definitely tannin territory. It used to be thought that too much water in the mash would Change PH. I don't think so, but I do stick to 1.25-1.5 quarts of spring water per pound of grains. So sticking loosely to some simple rules of this biochemistry we call brewing will usually yield good results. Every game has some basic rules.

 

[NathPowe]

Very interesting topic IMO

Edited to add: When people ask me if brewing is hard, I tell them the hardest part of brewing is arguing about it on the internet.

I agree. Really interesting thread topic, and props to the OP (seriously).

We can argue day long about most things brewing-related, but I think we can all agree that the back-flip will get you at least three extra gravity points.

Cheers.

 

[cernst151]

Very interesting topic IMO

I agree, I love this stuff. The perpetual Art v. Science debate on brewing. The beauty of it is that as long as you're getting an end product you enjoy it really doesn't matter.