The Opposite of Why I got Into This

[Gytaryst]

One of the reasons I got into home brewing was so I could drink awesome homemade beers that I couldn't find in the stores. There were obviously other reasons, but that was a big reason and I've heard many others make similar comments.

I've been brewing a little over 2 years, (I'm not sure how long one is considered a "Beginner"). Is it a period of time or a number of brews? I would imagine that in most cases, if you've been brewing for a year, a beginner is anyone who has only been brewing for 11 months. If you've been brewing for 2 years then a beginner is probably 0-23 months. But I digress.

I've brewed quite a few batches of mediocre to slightly less than mediocre beer so far. With each batch I've learned what works and what doesn't and made adjustments in equipment and technique accordingly. I don't know if I've brewed two batches using the same equipment or process. It seems like so far I've been in a constant state of trying to dial things in.

Two batches ago I decided to brew a Quad - my second Quad. The first one was okay. It wasn't a world class award winner, but it wasn't bad. I changed up the recipe on the second attempt, and also changed up some equipment and planned on changing some of the processes. I went from a 10 gallon Igloo cooler MLT to a 15.5 gallon, stainless steel, bottom drain, keggle MLT. I also decided to try (for the first time) a step infusion mash. I hadn't made up my mind if I wanted to go with "The Brew Bag" as my MLT filter or a false bottom. Most false bottoms seem grossly over priced to me, (but I'm cheap). The "Brew Bag" for a keggle is $30 and (in theory) seems like a better filtration system. The claim is that you can use a finer crush and increase the efficiency. That made sense, so I was leaning toward that.

Brew day for the big Quad was approaching and I still didn't have any filter worked out for the keggle MLT. I could have used the Igloo, but really wanted to try out the new bottom drain keggle. So I ordered an extra large brewing bag on Amazon for like $8. (It wasn't "The Brew Bag" obviously). The dimensions were like 22" x 26", so I figured 26" was tall enough to use for a keggle. Brew day arrived, the strike water was heated, everything was laid out, and it was time to start doughing in. I opened up the $8 brew bag to discover it was 26" wide by only 22" tall. What on earth would be the reasoning for making a bag like that?

Long story short, I did the best I could without dumping grain all over the inside of the keggle - it wasn't easy. This Quad had 21 pounds of grain - it was estimated for a 1.100 OG with an abv of 11.4. The ingredients, (including 2 lbs of dark candi syrup), added up to my most expensive brew so far.

Since it was my first time using the keggle I missed all three of my infusion rest temps (low) and had to add extra water to boost the temp. On the second infusion the water I was heating wasn't up to temp when the time came to add it so I had to wait almost 20 minutes longer. I then added ALL the water I had heated and was still 4 or 5 degrees low, so I had to get more water heating up - which completely screwed up that rest.

The $8 sideways bag was overfilled with the 21 pounds of swollen grain, so there was no way to stir without sloshing grain all over the inside of the keggle and risk clogging the bottom drain.

By the time I was done with the mash I was debating just scraping it and throwing everything away, except again, this was the most I'd ever spent on ingredients. It was hard to just scrap that much money - so I pressed on. I drained the MLT, did a quick, (probably too fast) batch sparge, got my preboil volume without taking any gravity readings and fired up the burner. At this point I just wanted to get it done ASAP, (it wasn't fun anymore).

After the 90 minute boil I should have had 5.5 gallons going into the fermenter, but I was lucky to have 5, (if that). The OG was figured at 1.100 and I measured 1.055. I was pissed. 21 pounds of grain, 2 pounds of candi syrup, a 90 minute boil and an OG of 1.055?

I had to take a short break to keep from trashing my entire brew system at that point. I came back, pitched my yeast starter and stuck it in the fermenter.

So I brewed this disaster on 04/24. It finished fermenting at 1.005 and I bottled on 05/15, (3 weeks in primary). I cold crashed it the last 3 days in fermentation so it was 40 degrees at bottling. I adjusted the corn sugar according to the calculated temp which was considerably less than I usually use.

It's been in the bottle almost 4 weeks now. If I pour one super aggressively, (I mean hold the bottle a foot above the glass and pour it right down the middle), I get a decent finger and a half of head that completely disappears within 10-15 seconds. The aroma is strong Belgian yeast and malt. It's not a faint nose - it's definitely there. Just not much to the nose other than yeast first and foremost, with malt. No floral or fruity notes, raisins, carmel, or any of the smells one would associate with a Quad.

It has a full bodied mouth feel, fairly dry on the finish, with a definite sour off flavor. I can't quite put a taste to the sourness other than just . . . sour. It's not really a face puckering sour - it's actually fairly subdued. But it's just enough to distract the tongue from picking up on any other flavors.

It tastes and feels like it's carbonated perfectly. The fact that the head vanishes immediately makes it seem like it should taste flat - but it doesn't.

It's not a disgusting. It's not at all what I expected so I've had a few now just to see if it's bad, or if I get the impression it's bad because I anticipated something else. Like when you pick up a glass that you think is coke and it turns out to be iced tea. I like coke and iced tea, but when you're expecting coke it's a shock.

In short - I can't decide if this is a drain pour?, if it's infected?, where the "sourness" is coming from?

When I grabbed the first box out of the pantry there was beer leaking out of it. I thought, Uh Oh, something broke or exploded. There was maybe a teaspoon of beer at one end of the box. I inspected every bottle, held them upside, turned them around . . . not one bottle appeared to be leaking???

So anyway, this has been the batch from hell. Just venting

 

[applescrap]

Oh man, i feel you. There's a thread somewhere around here for disaster batches. Everything you're experiencing is part of the process. Some don't have these things happen, some do. The more you learn about your system and the more you use it the better it goes. I take notes and think about changes for next time. Keep your head up, your brewing and your beer will get better. I appreciate you sharing and know with your dedication, you will soon be making amazing beers.

 

[mirthfuldragon]

Sucks man. Bad days happen. My last brew day started at 1:30pm and didn't end until 11:30pm. And I blew my mash temp by 5 degrees. Live and learn.

False bottom + cooler = works really well.

Also I would never expect 7 week old quad to be good - put it away and come back in another four or six months and see how it goes.

 

[yesjenks]

As mentioned, bad brew days happen to everyone. Hang in there. Focus on making a few really simple beers. Focus on the process.

So far my experience has been "simplicity" really works! I've gotten into a few other hobbies and purchased the best possible gear, changing this often. With brewing I started with extract for about a year and have since moved to BIAB AG 5g batches. I don't have any fancy equipment and the quality of my bear is amazing!!

Hang in there. Don't change anything and brew on the same system a few times in a row. Maybe find 3 SMASH recipes and bang em out.

Good luck!!

 

[Gytaryst]

Yeah. I'm brewing this beer Saturday. When you fall get back up, and all that. I finally put together the equipment and set up I want so that will cut down on a lot of the variables and unknowns.

 

[cswalker]

I'm 6 years in, VP of local club, Brew twice monthly, and still consider myself a newbie. That's one of the best parts about this passion besides the creativity and community. Brewing is a constant puzzle that needs to be solved. No matter how many sides and colors of the Rubix you solve, something will always come along and force you to readjust and solve it again.

 

[Gytaryst]

... Also I would never expect 7 week old quad to be good - put it away and come back in another four or six months and see how it goes.

This was supposed to be a Quad. Because of all the issues with the mash instead of hitting my 1.100 OG and ending up with the 11.4% abv Quad I set out to brew, my OG was only 1.055 and I ended up with some 6-ish percent abv swamp water that I wasted 21 pounds of grain and 2 lbs of candi syrup to make.

So I'm not sure if aging is going to help or hurt this crap. It''l probably get aged - I don't see this disappearing too quickly

 

[mongoose33]

IMO, this "when do you stop being a beginner" idea is barking up the wrong tree. Some will say "I'm still learning so I'm still a beginner," some will try to put a time frame on it, some will use other criteria.

Some assume that despite being very experienced making a mistake means that they must still be a beginner. I think there's a difference between being a newbie and making a goof. Professional brewers make mistakes; I doubt anyone would label them beginners. And some assume that because they're still learning they must be a beginner. I don't agree; brewing is an incredibly complicated process at the margins, and I doubt anyone has mastered it all.

My personal definition is this: when one can produce good beer, beer others want to drink, and when one can reproduce that beer, then one is no longer a beginner. One may not be an expert, but neither is she/he a beginner.

I've spent my whole life learning; that will only stop when I'm dead. IMO, continual learning is a sign of an inquisitive and active mind, not a beginning one.

 

[madscientist451]

Drain pour, no way, sounds very drinkable from here.
My 2 cents: (not worth more than that) If you are making mediocre beer, start using some established recipes that are known to make good beer.
Listen to the can you brew it podcast and pick one that is a style you like.
The beers picked for the CYBI show were all pretty much great beers, so you really can't go wrong. You can even compare your beer to the commercial version and see how you did. Once you have a particular beer the way you want, move on to another. That way, you'll have great beer to drink and be learning at the same time.

 

[eadavis80]

I would not pour it down the drain unless you detest it and/or need bottles. You've done all the work. Keeping the beer harms nothing and it MIGHT improve the beer.

 

[brewskiez]

You could always imagine its a bud ice and then when you drink it it will taste amazing... ie coke to tea scenario.

I haven't been brewing but for about one year so what do I know but I do several batches a month because I like beer. I tried a big fancy batch and it didn't turn out well either I actually dumped it I had some pretty ill feelings after that batch but bounced back. I think my biggest issue was not enough water and space which sounds kind of like what you had going on. Some of my highest efficiency batches have the least amount of grain I attribute that to more contact with the water which is actually holding the heat to release the sugars. Only reason I say that is because you mentioned having trouble stirring from lack of room as I read it.

 

[HomeDrewBrew]

I cant explain how much ive endured and learned over the past couple years of brewing.
Water is def important to descent beer and i agree with most times simplicity is best.

 

[golfandbrew]

Yeah. I'm brewing this beer Saturday. When you fall get back up, and all that. I finally put together the equipment and set up I want so that will cut down on a lot of the variables and unknowns.

Just curious what changes you decided on with your equipment. Did you get the improved results with your next beer you were expecting.... hitting your gravity? Less frustrating? Etc

 

[Gytaryst]

... My 2 cents: (not worth more than that) If you are making mediocre beer, start using some established recipes that are known to make good beer.

Maybe "mediocre" isn't the right word. I haven't brewed anything that I thought was above average. There are some commercial beers out there that knock my socks off; the smell, the appearance, the taste . . . spot on. A big part of why I got into home brewing was to brew beer like that. That said, I'm not irrational. I never expected that every beer I brewed would be a grand slam home run, nor did I think I would be turning out world class beer out of the gate. So while it's not a complete disappointment that I haven't brewed what I would consider to be a "good beer" yet, at the same time it is kind of a disappointment. My reaction to every beer I've brewed so far has been, "Eh, maybe next time."

I'll keep plugging away because I enjoy the entire process. I saw a T shirt that read, "Home Brewing is my Hobby - Beer is my Reward." So far I get the first part of that. The second part is still questionable - but I'm still in the hunt.

Just curious what changes you decided on with your equipment. Did you get the improved results with your next beer you were expecting.... hitting your gravity? Less frustrating? Etc

I brewed the W.O.G. on 04/24 and bottled it on 05/15. I affectionately refer to it as W.O.G., (short for Waste of Grain)

I brewed a pale ale on 05/17 using pretty much the same equipment except I had the actual "Brew Bag" this time. I just bottled it 4 days ago, (06/07). On that one I think my efficiency was around 67%, OG was 1.052 and FG was 1.010. Not the disaster the W.O.G. was, but still not the numbers I was shooting for either.

I'm keeping the equipment set up I have now until I can get it dialed in and know for sure where the issues are coming from. I added a keggle HLT with a 1/2" ball valve and dip tube soldered in and a sight glass level indicator. I also built a stand so I can have that up high enough to fly sparge now. I just bought all the ingredients for the IPA I'm brewing Wednesday, and the addition of the HLT and the ability to fly sparge are the only differences in equipment or technique. My MLT is a sanke keg with the bottom cut off and the 3 piece bottom drain kit from Brewhardware. I currently have a 10" stainless steel heavy duty round cooling rack in the bottom and "The Brew Bag." The only thing I'm considering possibly changing if I can't improve my numbers is doing away with the brew bag and going with a false bottom. I like the concept of the brew bag, (in theory), and I'm not a fan of the false bottoms I've seen, (or the prices some people are charging). As I said I like the idea behind the brew bag - the quality of the bag is great. I'm going to try doing a slightly thinner mash and fly sparging and see if that helps.

I looked at going all electric, I looked at getting a pump or two and building a RIMS or HERMS system, I looked at the grainfather, BIAB... I think (I hope) the 3 tier gravity fed system with the 3 keggles will do everything I want to do, (once I get it dialed in). I'm sick of washing bottles and want to start kegging. I want to build a 4 tower keezer and I'm putting up a 120 sq ft brew shed/man cave. So whether this is the "perfect" brew system or not - it is what it is at this point.

Maybe when the shed's done the four taps will be commercial beers and the brew system will just be a conversation piece for decoration . . . but that's okay too.

 

[madscientist451]

Maybe "mediocre" isn't the right word. I haven't brewed anything that I thought was above average. There are some commercial beers out there that knock my socks off; the smell, the appearance, the taste . . . spot on.

If you are using your own recipes, the chance of making a "spot on" beer in just one version is about zero. Great commercial beer recipes and processes take much trial and error. Not all 2 row pale malt is the same. There is a huge variation in hop quality within the same varieties and year.
Hitting your numbers is important, but may not matter all that much in how great the beer is unless you are totally out of whack.
Getting a new brewing rig isn't going to change a whole lot, you can make great beer with a pot and a bag and your kitchen stove if you have the right combination of ingredients and a solid process.

 

[ericbw]

Have you ever brewed the same one twice? I think that's how you improve. Pick your best one, and figure out why you thought it was average or mediocre. Then figure out what factors contribute to it's mediocrity. Change one thing at a time and see if it improves.

The equipment is far less important than techniques and how you do it. Pumps, bigger MLT, etc. will make it easier to make beer, but it might not improve it.

On the quad, you only got half the gravity you should have. That's a big difference. I would start re-doing recipes and dial in. Or start with a really simple beer and see if you can nail it. A huge Belgian quad is just 4 times as strong as a simple Belgian table beer. A double IPA is an amped up (read: more expensive) amber or pale ale.

Try the lighter weight versions first, then build them up. In the process, you'll make better beer and learn along the way. You don't seem at all deterred or ready to quit!

 

[Gytaryst]

Have you ever brewed the same one twice? I think that's how you improve. Pick your best one, and figure out why you thought it was average or mediocre. Then figure out what factors contribute to it's mediocrity. Change one thing at a time and see if it improves.

The equipment is far less important than techniques and how you do it. Pumps, bigger MLT, etc. will make it easier to make beer, but it might not improve it.

On the quad, you only got half the gravity you should have. That's a big difference. I would start re-doing recipes and dial in. Or start with a really simple beer and see if you can nail it. A huge Belgian quad is just 4 times as strong as a simple Belgian table beer. A double IPA is an amped up (read: more expensive) amber or pale ale.

Try the lighter weight versions first, then build them up. In the process, you'll make better beer and learn along the way. You don't seem at all deterred or ready to quit!

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm doing, although for slightly different reasons probably.

My favorite beers are big Belgian/Trappist ales so that's what I've been trying to brew (almost exclusively) the past few years. They're definitely not "simple" beers to brew.

So partly because I'm bored with the Belgian theme (for now), partly because it's summer and I want something lighter and hoppier, and partly because I'm sick of wasting big grain bills on "okay" beer, I'm brewing some simpler, lighter beers now and sticking to proven recipes that have good feedback.

Great advice on here. I'm excited about this recipe I'm brewing Wednesday. Hopefully everything goes as planned.

 

[motosapiens]

Maybe "mediocre" isn't the right word. I haven't brewed anything that I thought was above average. There are some commercial beers out there that knock my socks off; the smell, the appearance, the taste . . . spot on. A big part of why I got into home brewing was to brew beer like that. That said, I'm not irrational. I never expected that every beer I brewed would be a grand slam home run, nor did I think I would be turning out world class beer out of the gate. So while it's not a complete disappointment that I haven't brewed what I would consider to be a "good beer" yet, at the same time it is kind of a disappointment. My reaction to every beer I've brewed so far has been, "Eh, maybe next time."

so..... when you brew a mediocre beer, do you figure out what went wrong and try it again? Or do you go to some other completely different style and start from scratch?

I have definitely brewed a few batches of mediocre beer, but i only experiment every now and then, so most of what I brew is excellent, and I analyze it and taste it blind against commercial examples and sometimes find minor tweaks to make it even better. But then I've never tried to brew a quad because I don't much care for them.

 

[mongoose33]

so..... when you brew a mediocre beer, do you figure out what went wrong and try it again? Or do you go to some other completely different style and start from scratch?

I have definitely brewed a few batches of mediocre beer, but i only experiment every now and then, so most of what I brew is excellent, and I analyze it and taste it blind against commercial examples and sometimes find minor tweaks to make it even better. But then I've never tried to brew a quad because I don't much care for them.

I think this is something that will help OP, i.e., refining the process.

I try to do something better every time I brew, but I also tend to brew the same recipes...that way I can refine them.

I just brewed my 33rd batch, last 30 are all-grain. I've done...Discounting the first 5, which were LHBS ingredient kits, I brewed relatively simple recipes to start, but that said, ingredients are ingredients. I focused on getting the water right, and focused on fermentation temperature.

You don't indicate at all what you're doing for water. Tap water? RO water? Are you adding salts? What kind of pH are you getting?

This last batch certainly sounds like the mash schedule and temps goofed you up. But what about the other elements, i.e., water source and fermentation temperature?

 

[ericbw]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm doing, although for slightly different reasons probably.



My favorite beers are big Belgian/Trappist ales so that's what I've been trying to brew (almost exclusively) the past few years. They're definitely not "simple" beers to brew.



So partly because I'm bored with the Belgian theme (for now), partly because it's summer and I want something lighter and hoppier, and partly because I'm sick of wasting big grain bills on "okay" beer, I'm brewing some simpler, lighter beers now and sticking to proven recipes that have good feedback.



Great advice on here. I'm excited about this recipe I'm brewing Wednesday. Hopefully everything goes as planned.

Big belgians are tough and can take time to age. This smaller one should better faster.

 

[BlueHouseBrewhaus]

As has been said already, pick some simple low- to mid-gravity brews and brew them a few times to get your process consistent. You need to be able to have repeatable results. Consistency is the goal. If you brew the same thing twice and get OGs that are 10 points apart, it means your process isn't dialed in yet and you need to look at where you are being inconsistent. I will take a consistent 65% efficiency over an efficiency that varies from 75-85% any day.

The other significant element is temperature - for mash and fermentation. Multi-step infusion mashes are tricky. Each step magnifies any variables to the point where it's a crapshoot after the second step. I've learned from way too many errors that if I start with the BrewSmith infusion calculator and then add 4-5 degrees I get my steps about right. But that's just with my system. Mash temps may very well be where you crashed with your quad.

Finally, there is fermentation temp. Hopefully, you have a way to regulate that. If you can nail down your process, mash temps and fermentation temps, you're 90% of the way to making good beer. The last 10% is what goes into to making great beer and I don't pretend to have that mastered. I don't think I've yet made a great beer but I've had some that gave me hope I might be close.

 

[applescrap]

As has been said already, pick some simple low- to mid-gravity brews and brew them a few times to get your process consistent. You need to be able to have repeatable results. Consistency is the goal. If you brew the same thing twice and get OGs that are 10 points apart, it means your process isn't dialed in yet and you need to look at where you are being inconsistent. I will take a consistent 65% efficiency over an efficiency that varies from 75-85% any day.

The other significant element is temperature - for mash and fermentation. Multi-step infusion mashes are tricky. Each step magnifies any variables to the point where it's a crapshoot after the second step. I've learned from way too many errors that if I start with the BrewSmith infusion calculator and then add 4-5 degrees I get my steps about right. But that's just with my system. Mash temps may very well be where you crashed with your quad.

Finally, there is fermentation temp. Hopefully, you have a way to regulate that. If you can nail down your process, mash temps and fermentation temps, you're 90% of the way to making good beer. The last 10% is what goes into to making great beer and I don't pretend to have that mastered. I don't think I've yet made a great beer but I've had some that gave me hope I might be close.

I disagree with most of this. I would personally way rather have 75 to 85 consistency. Than 65, but then again I dont measure gravity. Also, I am going to try and shoot for the 90s with a batch sparge, biab squeeze. I want to get the most out of my grain. Imo getting mash and fermentation temps exact will not put someone 90 percent on the path to quality beer. Test after test from brulosophy, and imo again, common sense, leads to very little taste difference in a few degrees of mash temp. I have had people at breweries, home brewers, tell me they can taste a one degree difference in mash temp. Albeit step mashing could be different. The path to great beer, within reason, lies in water and quality ingredients, imo. Beer making is 90 percent water, focus attention there rather than mash temp. Dialing in the system is no doubt key as every system is unique even at the pro level. Brewing same batch over and over is a great way imo to dial in brewing skill, recipes, and system, but I wouldn't do that unless mass production of a recipe or beer was what I was seeking, i like variety. My 2 cents. Big beers are tricky, I use two bags to make it easier to deal with grain.

 

[Gytaryst]

As has been said already, pick some simple low- to mid-gravity brews and brew them a few times to get your process consistent. You need to be able to have repeatable results. Consistency is the goal. If you brew the same thing twice and get OGs that are 10 points apart, it means your process isn't dialed in yet and you need to look at where you are being inconsistent. I will take a consistent 65% efficiency over an efficiency that varies from 75-85% any day.

The other significant element is temperature - for mash and fermentation. Multi-step infusion mashes are tricky. Each step magnifies any variables to the point where it's a crapshoot after the second step. I've learned from way too many errors that if I start with the BrewSmith infusion calculator and then add 4-5 degrees I get my steps about right. But that's just with my system. Mash temps may very well be where you crashed with your quad.

Finally, there is fermentation temp. Hopefully, you have a way to regulate that. If you can nail down your process, mash temps and fermentation temps, you're 90% of the way to making good beer. The last 10% is what goes into to making great beer and I don't pretend to have that mastered. I don't think I've yet made a great beer but I've had some that gave me hope I might be close.

Yes. I'm not fanatical about the efficiency and I agree that a consistent number is the primary objective. At the same time, I would not be satisfied with a "consistent 65%". Even if I was getting 65% on the dot with every brew, I would still be constantly thinking about what I could change to improve it.

The importance of mash and fermentation temps was one of the first things I learned early on. Like I said, I love big Belgian ales and that's what I wanted to brew. One of the characteristics of those beers is that there aren't a lot of ingredients. The flavors, (for the most part), are from mash techniques and temps, obviously the yeast, and the fermentation temps. It's easy to just add a bunch of stuff to get those flavors, (that's what most of the clone recipes do). The challenge (for me) was to coax those notes out of the grain and hops using temp control. There's a difference between a beer that has chocolate notes because of the grain and process used vs a beer that just has chocolate added.

Anyway, that was the fun and the challenge of brewing Belgian ales for me. I'll definitely go back and try some more - but for now I need to take a step back and get my equipment and my technique dialed in and consistent first.

 

[Br3w4u]

I would say the best thing to do is to stick with the system that you like using and do what works best for you. If you keep changing the way you brew then you won't get consistent results. Also I wouldn't attempt a big beer on a new system until you know how that system will perform for you. My first few all grain batches were BIAB and personally I hated it. I now use a cooler mash tun with a false bottom and it's what has worked for me for the last 2 years so I don't plan to change even if someone sounds super convincing that there is a better way.

 

[NorthwestBrewman2013]

Drain pour, no way, sounds very drinkable from here.
My 2 cents: (not worth more than that) If you are making mediocre beer, start using some established recipes that are known to make good beer.
Listen to the can you brew it podcast and pick one that is a style you like.
The beers picked for the CYBI show were all pretty much great beers, so you really can't go wrong. You can even compare your beer to the commercial version and see how you did. Once you have a particular beer the way you want, move on to another. That way, you'll have great beer to drink and be learning at the same time.

This. One of the mistakes that I made when I first started brewing was to try and be too cute with my recipe choices. I found that mastering the simple beers gave me much more confidence to brew the bigger beers with better results. Now I have a Red Ale, IPA, Pale and Porter that are very basic but extremely delicious. I've brewed them a few times and tweaked different things each time to perfect it. A Quad is, by all accounts, a super tough style to get right. Not sure that starting with that is a good idea. Maybe brew a low ABV Saison and get your bearings with the yeast flavors, esters, and steps. Trying to make Crème Brule when your skill level says brownies is not a good idea.

 

[ericbw]

I disagree with most of this. I would personally way rather have 75 to 85 consistency. Than 65, but then again I dont measure gravity. Also, I am going to try and shoot for the 90s with a batch sparge, biab squeeze. I want to get the most out of my grain. Imo getting mash and fermentation temps exact will not put someone 90 percent on the path to quality beer. Test after test from brulosophy, and imo again, common sense, leads to very little taste difference in a few degrees of mash temp. I have had people at breweries, home brewers, tell me they can taste a one degree difference in mash temp. Albeit step mashing could be different. The path to great beer, within reason, lies in water and quality ingredients, imo. Beer making is 90 percent water, focus attention there rather than mash temp. Dialing in the system is no doubt key as every system is unique even at the pro level. Brewing same batch over and over is a great way imo to dial in brewing skill, recipes, and system, but I wouldn't do that unless mass production of a recipe or beer was what I was seeking, i like variety. My 2 cents. Big beers are tricky, I use two bags to make it easier to deal with grain.

I agree with this for the most part. I think 65% is too low. 70-75 is better for a minimum acceptable.

Mash temp prob doesn't matter that much within a few degrees. But fermentation temp can be very noticeable.

The same Belgian yeast is really different at 62 and 80.

 

[BlueHouseBrewhaus]

I would personally way rather have 75 to 85 consistency. Than 65, but then again I dont measure gravity....

Test after test from brulosophy, and imo again, common sense, leads to very little taste difference in a few degrees of mash temp.

I agree with this for the most part. I think 65% is too low. 70-75 is better for a minimum acceptable.

Mash temp prob doesn't matter that much within a few degrees. But fermentation temp can be very noticeable.

The same Belgian yeast is really different at 62 and 80.

My point was not that 65% is good efficiency but that a consistent 65% is preferable to efficiency that varies randomly between 75% - 85%. If your efficiency varies by as much as 10 points with each new brew, you never know what beer you'll end up with. Once you get consistent results from your process, then you can start tweaking it to improve efficiency.

As for mash temp control, the OP indicated he was missing his step temps by 5 degrees. Yes, a couple of degrees in a single step mash is not a big deal. But 5 degrees low for each step in a multistep mash is. Yes, it will still be beer. It just won't be the beer you planned.

 

[Gytaryst]

I think 65% is too low as well, consistent or not. It's like doing a consistent 40 mph in a drag race . . . SURE, it's "consistent."???

I brewed this past weekend. Easiest brew day to date. Everything "seemed" to go as planned. According to Brewers Friend, my numbers were:
Mash Efficiency - 81.9%
BH Efficiency - 61.8%
Pre-boil Efficiency - 65.5%

I think I'm going to abandon "The Brew Bag" and try a false bottom, (as much as I hate the idea)

 

[ericbw]

Where do you get your grain crushed? Do you double mill it? A finer crush will give better efficiency.

 

[NSMikeD]

So you took a shot at a big beer with more complex procedures with a change in equipment and it didn't turn out as expected. Dust off your ego, take and bow, pat yourself on the back and accept my high five.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." Teddy Roosevelt.

BTW, the analogy of doing 40mph in a drag race is misguided. In the end, it's taste that counts, not efficiency. Efficiency affects the cost of your beer, but not necessary the quality. It's very important for commercial brewers who need to squeeze out the slimmest of profit margins and achieve economies of scale. If you chase efficiency, it's possible that you will get excess tannins resulting is astringency in your beer.

I stopped chasing efficiency and instead focused on water profile and temperature (mash and fermentation) and the results were very noticeable for the positive.

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

I didn't read this whole thread, but I think I might have some insight on your sour flavor. I have bought malt from an LHBS that seems has little traffic. I look at their extensive 8 gallon buckets of grain and think, "some of this malt must be extremely old". I don't know what made me do it but i shoved a 1/4 ounce of the dry crushed malt in my mouth before mashing in and detected a faint but clearly there sour taste. I discounted it until it showed up in my beer. I think old malt may pick up this flavor from lactobacillus that I have heard hangs out in barley malt. I taste my grist before mashing in now because I believe it adds additional data to understanding my process. I think we've all had bad brew days. It's no different than any other hobby. Sometimes you don't catch a fish, sometimes you can't get that carburetor to fit your intake. If the hobbies were too easy, they wouldn't be fun. Stop being so hard on yourself. Every beer I've made has had faults unexpected happenings, greatness and joy. Learn a little, drink a little and have fun.

 

[applescrap]

So you took a shot at a big beer with more complex procedures with a change in equipment and it didn't turn out as expected. Dust off your ego, take and bow, pat yourself on the back and accept my high five.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." Teddy Roosevelt.

BTW, the analogy of doing 40mph in a drag race is misguided. In the end, it's taste that counts, not efficiency. Efficiency affects the cost of your beer, but not necessary the quality. It's very important for commercial brewers who need to squeeze out the slimmest of profit margins and achieve economies of scale. If you chase efficiency, it's possible that you will get excess tannins resulting is astringency in your beer.

I stopped chasing efficiency and instead focused on water profile and temperature (mash and fermentation) and the results were very noticeable for the positive.

I like and appreciate the keep trying sentiment. I said the same thing to a good brewer once, not about a face marred by dust and blood, but about efficiency. He said the beer with the more sugar, the better efficiency, would have more flavor. I have to agree with that from a common sense perspective. If you use more grain, than that could change, but if using the same exact recipe, the beer made with 90 percent efficiency would have more flavor than one at 70, imo. If nothing else it would be stronger, but sure, to each their own. Had another friend who said that he brewed so much, the extra grain added up. I am willing to try for 90, I will report back on what I find. I agree water is key.

 

[NSMikeD]

Regarding efficiency, for my 2.5 gallon brews, the difference between 70% and 90% mash efficiency works out to about two bucks. The goal is to accurately predict how much grain to use to result in a desired amount of sugars. The is why I think, for the average home brewer, consistency is more important that absolute efficiency.

Pursuing efficiency is good- as long as it done hand in hand with achieving consistency

 

[Gytaryst]

Where do you get your grain crushed? Do you double mill it? A finer crush will give better efficiency.

I contacted my LHBS a few weeks ago and asked some of those questions. Eventually I probably want to buy a grain crusher and mill my own, but for now I'm tired of washing bottles and want to get into kegging, so that's where I'm focusing the money I spend.

My LHBS has their crusher set to .038, (which according to them is a good semi-fine crush). They can't adjust it for each individual customer, (which I can understand), and they can't really double mill it because they said at .038 it's too fine for the rollers to grab the second time thru.

So you took a shot at a big beer with more complex procedures with a change in equipment and it didn't turn out as expected. Dust off your ego, take and bow, pat yourself on the back and accept my high five.

BTW, the analogy of doing 40mph in a drag race is misguided. In the end, it's taste that counts, not efficiency. Efficiency affects the cost of your beer, but not necessary the quality. It's very important for commercial brewers who need to squeeze out the slimmest of profit margins and achieve economies of scale. If you chase efficiency, it's possible that you will get excess tannins resulting is astringency in your beer.

Yes and no. My analogy was perhaps not a perfect comparison, but not "misguided." I agree, "If you chase efficiency, it's possible that you will get excess tannins resulting is astringency in your beer." My goal really isn't 99% efficiency, (if that is even possible). And I agree that consistency takes priority over efficiency to a certain extent. My only point is that I can't be satisfied with a 65% efficiency no matter how "consistent" it might be. I think I could live with 72% . . . or 74 . . . 76 . . .

I didn't read this whole thread, but I think I might have some insight on your sour flavor. I have bought malt from an LHBS that seems has little traffic. I look at their extensive 8 gallon buckets of grain and think, "some of this malt must be extremely old". I don't know what made me do it but i shoved a 1/4 ounce of the dry crushed malt in my mouth before mashing in and detected a faint but clearly there sour taste. I discounted it until it showed up in my beer. I think old malt may pick up this flavor from lactobacillus that I have heard hangs out in barley malt. I taste my grist before mashing in now because I believe it adds additional data to understanding my process. I think we've all had bad brew days. It's no different than any other hobby. Sometimes you don't catch a fish, sometimes you can't get that carburetor to fit your intake. If the hobbies were too easy, they wouldn't be fun. Stop being so hard on yourself. Every beer I've made has had faults unexpected happenings, greatness and joy. Learn a little, drink a little and have fun.

I hadn't thought about the grain, good point. This particular beer was mostly pilsen malt, (which I doubt sits around). Without going back and looking at the recipe there really wasn't any malts in it that I would think would fall under the "light traffic" category. One of my challenges with my later Belgians was to try and make the recipes as simple and minimal as possible so I could then better evaluate exactly where I was getting what flavors from. If I have 5 or 6 different malts in there it's harder to pinpoint that. As this beer gets older the tase is starting to mellow and round out. There is still a definite sourness. Like I said it's not a face puckering eye twitching sour, but it does seem out of place in this beer. I don't like sour beers, and I wouldn't classify this as a sour - but still, to me it's an "off flavor."

Regarding efficiency, for my 2.5 gallon brews, the difference between 70% and 90% mash efficiency works out to about two bucks. The goal is to accurately predict how much grain to use to result in a desired amount of sugars. The is why I think, for the average home brewer, consistency is more important that absolute efficiency.
Pursuing efficiency is good- as long as it done hand in hand with achieving consistency

My reasoning is even more straight forward than that. Most of the recipes I look at are figured at around 70% to 72% efficiency. Just for simplicity sake I would like to not have to adjust everything in that regard.

Great advice guys - thanks.

I went back and forth deciding between a false bottom and "The Brew Bag." In the end it came down to pretty much a coin toss and the thing that tipped me toward the brew bag was cost. Now that I've used it twice and my efficiency is still in the low 60's, I've decided to bite the bullet and get a false bottom. I'm leaning toward this one.

My last brew day was the smoothest brew day I've had to date. The only tweak I'm still working on is clarity. I use an immersion chiller in my BK so whirlpooling doesn't work. I use hop pellets in a fine mesh nylon bag, but I still end up with a ton of hop trub. Right now I rely on cold crashing after fermentation for about 90% of all my clearing efforts. My beers are fairly clear, but I would like to get them a little clearer if possible.

Cheers guys