Hello,
I recently did my first solo homebrew - my second ever - with a recipe I found online and tweaked to my liking. It's wrapping up it's second week of bottle conditioning and I'm getting ready to put in the chiller: if it tastes as good as it did after one week this is gonna be an awesome beer! Anyway, I'm "developing" my next recipe utilizing the same general outline as the first, just with some mods that I thought might improve the overall flavor. Initially, I was just going to follow the exact same procedures I did for the first one; the focus being on getting comfier with the process and improving the overall beer. However, I was recently encouraged to check out BeerSmith, and I'm so glad I did, because it's super fun to play with and seems to be worth it's weight in gold for someone who's quickly becoming obsessed with the ins-and-outs of homebrewing (a hobby I've been exploring for a while before actually taking the dive).
That being said, the recipe has me steeping my grains for 30 minutes (@155F) in 3 gallons of water before transitioning straight into the boil, and later, topping it off in the fermenter with 2-2.5 gal of chilled water. BeerSmith agrees with the temp and time, but it's recommending I steep in 1.25 gal., then, add 2.56 gal. to arrive at an est. pre-boil volume of 4.28 gal (including the vol of fermentables) and later topping off in two gallons of chilled water. I've poured over forums and the brew bible ("How to Brew") and I just can't seem to figure out why BeerSmith - in all it's infinite wisdom - is suggesting I use this method vs. the original recipe's (developed by an actual human and master brewer). I know people have come across similar issues using brew software, but I'm curious, has anyone has ever tried both (i.e. the recipe's guidelines and those suggested by something like BeerSmith) and experimented with the results? If so, I'd love to hear how it turned out for you and which route, if any, you'd suggest sticking with. Does anybody feel like this is ultimately a non-issue and I should do whichever feels right (i.e. the original recipe b/c BeerSmith's suggestion simply adds more steps to an otherwise straightforward, efficient homebrew) b/c the results will be virtually identical? The goal, obviously, is to make great beer though, and more importantly, to understand the "why" behind all these decision, so the extra step isn't exactly a hassle if it moves me closer toward those ends.
Any insight ya'll have and are willing to share would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much!
I recently did my first solo homebrew - my second ever - with a recipe I found online and tweaked to my liking. It's wrapping up it's second week of bottle conditioning and I'm getting ready to put in the chiller: if it tastes as good as it did after one week this is gonna be an awesome beer! Anyway, I'm "developing" my next recipe utilizing the same general outline as the first, just with some mods that I thought might improve the overall flavor. Initially, I was just going to follow the exact same procedures I did for the first one; the focus being on getting comfier with the process and improving the overall beer. However, I was recently encouraged to check out BeerSmith, and I'm so glad I did, because it's super fun to play with and seems to be worth it's weight in gold for someone who's quickly becoming obsessed with the ins-and-outs of homebrewing (a hobby I've been exploring for a while before actually taking the dive).
That being said, the recipe has me steeping my grains for 30 minutes (@155F) in 3 gallons of water before transitioning straight into the boil, and later, topping it off in the fermenter with 2-2.5 gal of chilled water. BeerSmith agrees with the temp and time, but it's recommending I steep in 1.25 gal., then, add 2.56 gal. to arrive at an est. pre-boil volume of 4.28 gal (including the vol of fermentables) and later topping off in two gallons of chilled water. I've poured over forums and the brew bible ("How to Brew") and I just can't seem to figure out why BeerSmith - in all it's infinite wisdom - is suggesting I use this method vs. the original recipe's (developed by an actual human and master brewer). I know people have come across similar issues using brew software, but I'm curious, has anyone has ever tried both (i.e. the recipe's guidelines and those suggested by something like BeerSmith) and experimented with the results? If so, I'd love to hear how it turned out for you and which route, if any, you'd suggest sticking with. Does anybody feel like this is ultimately a non-issue and I should do whichever feels right (i.e. the original recipe b/c BeerSmith's suggestion simply adds more steps to an otherwise straightforward, efficient homebrew) b/c the results will be virtually identical? The goal, obviously, is to make great beer though, and more importantly, to understand the "why" behind all these decision, so the extra step isn't exactly a hassle if it moves me closer toward those ends.
Any insight ya'll have and are willing to share would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much!
