Normalization of Deviance or just "WHY?"

[SpentBrains]

Ours can be a very scientific hobby. So if you clicked on this post, it's likely you have at least a basic understanding of Diane Vaughan's concept taken from her book on the Challenger disaster. Guilty of straying from some of the hard fast rules, I am a self proclaimed deviation. Although I have yet to brew a beer that was a complete disaster, I wonder why certain norms have developed in home brewing as absolutes when they aren't held as standards in the world of commercial beer production or even some large micro breweries. Here's several examples:

1) Sanitize everything. Well, I'm not saying don't sanitize things, but I watch videos on youtube about home brewing and the amount of sanitizer some people get in their beer is mind boggling. I've made at least a few beers in near open ferment style and haven't seen whatever it is the sanitizer sales people must be telling people can happen. Mine that work this way are usually mid range gravity, quick fermented, high off gassing ales, so I agree the window of opportunity for vomitus infectiolutus or some other foul yet named microbe to find its way in, is small. Im not arguing for no sanitizer in the process, but harken back to the 19th century where much of the beer was made because it was a better alternative than the surface water and I pause...how much beer did our forefathers dump? Is my perceived over sanitizing compulsion some engage in, something newer brewers do while they are making youtube videos, or am I the deviant?

2) Oxidation fascination. From the start, I kegged. I never messed with bottles to begin with, for all the reasons the rest of you have all but quit bottling. But occasionally I find myself with a few quarts (liters for you people that refuse to convert) of extra beer that didn't fit or broke siphon or any number of reasons. A while back I picked up some swing tops and more recently bought a truckload of homebrew stuff from a cragslists ad. That haul included a capper and a gross of bottles. So on occasion now I will fill a few bottles with the dregs of decanted beer once I've filled kegs, or racked everything I wanted off the yeast cake. I've splashed it around, exposed it to oxygen, even arguably "oxygenated" it in the process of dumping the beer off settled yeast of multiple containers to consolidate enough to fill a few bottles. Guess what? The bottled beer turns out every bit as good and in some cases even better than the clearest keg draws. I know what O2 does to foods like apples and avocados & I rack beer into kegs that have been purged with CO2, but my bottle experiences are starting to tell me that some of this oxidation fear is BS. Am I the deviant?

3) Long primary and even longer secondary fermentations? I have a brown farmhouse ale that has been in my 7.5 gallon carboy (30 liter demijohn for you EU and down under types) since Sunday evening. Today is Wednesday morning. About 72 hours since the pitch and It's done. 1.054 to 1.017, which is exactly where I along with friends and family have drank every previous keg of this particular beer with it's seductive head retention and creamy brown fall/winter dinner pairing goodness. It's one of my favorites, a many time repeat in my house. The only reason I don't force carbonate it and have a pint this afternoon, is because there is no room in my keezer. So? I do it. Big breweries do it. Short turn around times, that is. Aside from highly complex high gravity beers, it seems that the common advice is much longer times in fermentation. Just look at most of the instruction sheets that come with all grain kits or the procedure section of almost every home brew recipe on line. Before you bother typing out a lecture about yeast "cleaning up after themselves" and diacetyl rests, tell me how we balance these long process and bottle age ideologies when mass production turns beer in 3-4 days and popular marketing leans in this direction:

http://freshbeeronly.com/The_Fresh_Beer_List.html

Am I the deviation?

 

[cmoewes]

You are clearly a deviant... err and mean deviation.

Another one is the if it tastes bad, let it age it will get better. Yes it will get better but it will still be bad. If the beer is bad, just let it go. I've asked pro-brewers how they get some beers, like imperial stouts, from grain to glass in 2 week and the response is "that how long it takes" why should it take longer. But ask a home brewer and they default is to age an imperial stout for months (barrel aging aside).

 

[Gavin C]

Don't santitize everything. Only the few items that should be.

Long primary and longer secondary. Nope.

Oxidation as a myth. Nope.

 

[SeraW]

I agree with some of what you're saying and can see your point. Another one I chuckle at is folks who are so sure they have, say, a Lacto infection in their IPA, when the sour brewing folks are saying "Careful with the hops, your Lacto will be inhibited." They can't both be right, right?

 

[mongoose33]

One thing we need to be careful with is in using our own experiences and assuming our results will be universal.

When I lived in North Carolina I used to get mildew on things all the time--the side of our house on the north side was always dirty with mildew no matter what I did to clean it.

Up north here in Wisconsin, not so much.

Further, at this time of year in Wisconsin I don't think there are as many airborne biologicals as there would be in, say, June. Same with the difference between south and north--when we're having below-zero temps, it isn't the same as in other more temperate places.

All I'm saying is that we need to be careful in assuming what works at one point in the year, in one area of the world, will work in all others.

 

[mongoose33]

About oxygen: how soon after bottling did you drink the beer? This may have something to do with it. Or maybe the oxygen thing is way overhyped.

 

[mongoose33]

About primary/secondary times: I'm a new brewer so I tend to follow the advice of the directions and what I read here. I don't want extra variables!

That said, my first beer was an Irish Red Ale, from a kit from NB (came with the brewing equipment). Fermented fine, racked it into the secondary (as they said to do) after a week, two more weeks in a secondary and then bottled it with priming sugar mixed in.

Early on, the beer was drinkable but not that great. Then after leaving it for a couple more weeks, guess what? It settled down into a nice beer. Bottle conditioned, if you will.

Your experiences with your beer and your process may work very well for you; will it work well for me, or for anyone else? I know this is in essence the question you're asking, but in the absence of serious testing, what's the answer?

Now, that said, my second brew was an experiment to try to approximate the old recipe of Potosi Cave Ale--they changed the recipe this past summer, the rats! It's what drove me to brewing, so maybe there's a silver lining.

Anyway, the LHBS had a kit for ESB. I talked with the owner about what I was trying to do, he suggested adding a couple more pounds of DME to the kit. A place to start, at any rate. So I did.

Left that beer in the primary for 3 weeks, then kegged most of it, bottled four bottles using carbonation tabs--this so I could send a couple bottles to my son for comparison.

The beer in the keg has gone through a refinement over time--started out too sweet, then it settled down. The bottled beer is now similar to the kegged beer, but there's a sharp taste to it that isn't there in the kegged beer. Difference? Other than the carb drops, I don't know, as everything was cleaned and sanitized.

I have another batch of my Cave Ale clone fermenting right now, I changed one thing which was to move the flavoring hops back from 5 minutes from flameout to 15 minutes, to see if I could get a tad more bitterness. It's been in the primary for 12 days, I'll leave it there for at least 3 weeks.

Given my own experience, I'm convinced in my context that racking to a secondary is not important--and may prevent final cleaning up from occurring. I've read the Brulosophy exbeeriments, Marshall Schott did a secondary/no secondary brew, and no real difference. My own experience (though quite limited) is that I produced a very good beer while not racking to a secondary. Given the large number of brewers who say it is not necessary to rack to a secondary, I'm in the process of buying a second primary fermenter as my secondary is only 5 gallons. This way I could have more than one going at a time.

 

[McGarnigle]

In homebrewing, you can definitely get lucky and make good beer despite some faults in your process. This is a good thing.

1. I would agree with you that some people overstate santiation requirements. As you say, I would never forego sanitation, but let's not scare people off by making it sound like surgery.

2. As mongoose says, oxygenation will manifest itself over time.

3. Long primaries is an interetsing subject. These forums are generally anti-secondary - "the yeast isn't doing much except falling out" - but then people will say your beer improves if you leave it in primary for a month (or whatever).

 

[Homercidal]

1) Sanitize things that come in contact with the beer AFTER the chill. The reason isn't because if you don't your beer will be infected, but rather the CHANCES that your beer will be infected are likely much higher. The sanitizer is like insurance. Sure, you may never sanitize and never get an infection, but that is likely due to your particular circumstances, such as a) You clean very well. b) your environment is relatively free from infection sources, c) you drink your beer before signs of infection present themselves.

2) Oxidation isn't a bogeyman. Like most things, some people are more sensitive to those flavors than others. Oxidation can also take a bit of time to develop. You might get a level of oxidation that super tasters perceive in a short period, but set up the beer to develop more signs of oxidation as the beer sits for a while.

3) Long primary and/or Secondary are still highly discussed for the simple reason that different people have different preferences for their beer. Some people believe they prefer a clear beer to a cloudy beer. Some people don't mind a young beer. Some people don't care for "yeasty" taste in beers. Regardless of where the idea that a secondary is necessary comes from, the simple fact is that drinking a beer too young is likely to present more yeast character simply because the yeast hasn't had time to drop out of suspension. Conversely, some people believe that a long primary creates a yeasty flavor because the beer is sitting on old yeast cake. I tend to follow the idea that while I don't secondary, if I do a long primary it's because I like to get the beer chilled right after fermentation. The reason is that the colder temps inhibit damage to yeast, therefore helping to avoid the possibility of dead yeast flavors. Also it gets the yeast floccing, so it speeds up the clearing process.

As with everything, people's beliefs are all different, and people's tastes are all different. Much of what many homebrewers consider a hard, fast rule to brew by, likely makes scant difference if the ingredients are fresh, the recipe is sound, and the brewer avoids a couple of big mistakes. A lot of decisions a brewer can make don't induce a noticeable change in the flavor or character of the finished beer, but rather are considered "best practices" for avoiding the potential for a problem to develop.

I don't generally follow the logic that what a professional brewer does in a commercial brewery is what a homebrewer should do. Many of the reasons a professional does what they do is related to the business model and/or the equipment they have to use to brew the size of batches they brew. There certainly are some tenets that the two share, but there are more differences between the homebrewer and commercial brewer than you might realize.

As far as what people drank back in the 19th century, I can only speculate, not having lived back then. I suspect that people drank young beer, and possibly even still fermenting beer. Older beer was generally mixed with younger beer for the expressed purpose of being able to use it up. By the time beer was mass produced processes were developed to avoid issues with sanitation and infection. Measuring equipment was still being developed that helped the brewer brew better tasting beer. Brewers didn't brew in warmer conditions when the temperature would impact the flavor of the beer. Beer was stored in caves to keep it fresher longer. Gravity, and temperature tools, as well as refrigeration changed the commercial brewing process greatly.

It's an interesting discussion and difficult to convey between people in the format of a discussion board. Person to person would be a much more conducive environment to explain the reasonings and build a useful dialogue.

Also I don't have any references to show my reasonings, just a few years of experience and some random reading. My basic philosophy when it comes to homebrewing is do what makes sense to you, and use what process you prefer. There isn't much in homebrewing that will ruin a brew. Having a solid recipe for the beer being brewed may be as crucial as anything else. It just depends on the system, environment, and ingredients.

 

[nDub]

You appear to drink your beer very quickly.

1) I like to think that all equipment is infected regardless of sanitation. So brewing with yeast is just out competing the bacteria. Cleaning and sanitizing is just giving the yeast a leg up.

2) I will tell you for a fact that oxygenation of beer is real. Try some of my older cardboard bottled beer. I used race to finish my bottles before they turned. Now I keg so no problems.

3) I'm pretty sure commercial breweries do quick turn over on their beer because they need to make money. With homebrewing we have the luxury of time. Sure beer is good 10 days after brewing but will probably improve after 30. My beer improves with age. I also don't secondary.

 

[MaxStout]

I think success in brewing involves some trial-and-error. You start with the basics and learn from mistakes along the way. Which is NOT to say become reactionary and turn into some kind of germaphobe. There's a certain reasonableness that brewers will settle into once they have cleared out the challenges from their process. Do what needs to be done, but don't become obsessive. Keeping things sanitary and avoiding oxidation are important, but it's not like we need to create laboratory conditions. There is a point of diminishing returns that you'll hit, and needless obsessing won't get you any further.

 

[LandoLincoln]

I rarely wait the recommended 60 to 90 seconds that Star San tells you to wait before getting the items in contact with the beer. Haven't had an infection yet. I only sanitize stuff that deals with post-boil.

I too used to think that oxidation was a bunch of crap until I started submitting my beers for competitions and they came back with complaints about oxidation. I also took a beer sensory tasting class and I learned that I'm pretty immune to oxidation off-flavors. Just because you don't taste it doesn't mean that other people don't.

I wouldn't look to commercial breweries for ideal fermentation times, unless you're willing to filter beer and use a bright tank like they do. I'd depend on your own notes for what you think is best for your beers.

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

While many homebrewers have science jobs, homebrewing isn't itself a science. The consensus on losing the secondaries in homebrewing is a good example of how commercial brewing is different than homebrewing. I think that the quality of the beer back in the old days was probably often questionable, but that there was likely a huge range of very bad to very good beers. Today we have the knowledge to make good beer every time, but just like the "how much hops and malt" question, achieving a balance in sanitation, fermentation practices and even deciding what is and isn't "good beer" are all part of the fun and challenge. There's a fine line between working smarter and being lazy. There's also a fine line between good practices and being scrupulous. If we all agreed on everything though, we wouldn't need internet forums.

 

[SpentBrains]

Did not expect all of these fantastic replies! Thanks.

Sometimes it's obvious that even the commercial brewers are not 100% in agreement. There seems to be some marketing mileage in keeping beer buyers and consumers who don't mess around with brewing ever confused. I think about the terminology that has been misapplied by marketers over the years. "Fully krausened" "The vortex""double brewed" the list goes on and on... Maybe I just want to attack the big breweries primarily with regard to the marketing of their commercial beers. The polar opposition, the "beer improves with age crowd" vs. fresh beer/born on date group. Didn't the biggest brewery go from beechwood aged to born on dating in one season?

I also didn't give consideration to the fact that with regard to home brew, people may have significantly differing tastes, especially when it comes to oxidation. Some great insight!

 

[slym2none]

I believe AB's "Born On Date" is when the beer was bottled. It is still "Beechwood aged" beforehand.

 

[NewJersey]

Im pretty good and cleaning and sanitizing, but I laugh to myself every time i see guys obsessing over tri clamp stuff