Soulshine2
Well-Known Member
I agree with this as well. Once the starches/sugars have been converted and in solution/suspension theres is really no reason to continue with heated water. Its just a rinse.
What Is The One Aspect of Brewing That Is Least Important to Brewing a Good Beer? (In Your Opinion)
- Thread starter DrDance
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
Soulshine2
Well-Known Member
lol, I dont open a beer until Im done. after all, I spend a consistent 6 hrs brew day, by then and Ive dumped and cleaned up my equipment, I have surely deserved one.
Soulshine2
Well-Known Member
Mmmm, I could actually argue this to a small point. I usually just simmer the boil like you say. But, I have found that if I roll the boil at the end ,(10 minutes?) the hop particles are boiled up onto the sides of the kettle which leaves less in suspension or settled in the kettle to get drawn into the transfer to the FV.
Soulshine2
Well-Known Member
the whirlfloc tablet.
Ive brewed with and without , turns out if I get the hotbreak and cool quickly enough ,whirlfloc isnt necessary.
Birdgunner
Well-Known Member
Aeration. Gave it up hundreds of gallons ago and no detrimental effects observed.
Next would be starters. Just dropped 2 tbs of harvested Hornidal (third gen) into a blonde for giggles and 7 hours later the airlock was rockin.
Next would be starters. Just dropped 2 tbs of harvested Hornidal (third gen) into a blonde for giggles and 7 hours later the airlock was rockin.
Sanitizing the mash or boil equipment! When I started brewing I spent so much time scrubbing everything with starsan.
Not sure whether or why this was ever a thing. My tun and kettle aren't the prettiest equipment but they get the job done.
Robert65
Major Obvious (recently promoted)
Well, I suppose if you had stuff actually growing in the mash tun, you could possibly end up with some toxins in the beer. But something as simple as a good hot blast with a spray hose as soon as you're done using the equipment ought to do the trick there.
I think you are supposed to scrub before the starsan.
I think it is interesting what parts of the process folks think is expendable. I don't agree with most of them, naturally, because my process is perfect
ApolloSimcoe
Well-Known Member
Bling Equipment
danielthemaniel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2018
- Messages
- 192
- Reaction score
- 119
Basing any of your recipe to hit a particular IBU.
I "feel" that many brewers, both on this site as well as everywhere are prone to grossly over-complicate the process for no reason other than gross over-complication.
Though I'm guilty at times, I am a believer of KISS principles. Rather than saying that "you" over-complicate the process, I would like to suggest that you first understand the process, then chose when and where you "want" to drill deeper. Mentioned earlier was temperature control. It may be Unnecessary if you understand your style and choose the appropriate yeast for your environment (provided its within reason).
Simmer vs vigorous boil affects your evaporation rate. Again, neither is incorrect, but you may miss target og if your post boil volume isn't correct. Not wrong by any means, but plan your recipe accordingly.
Sorry everyone for this, but lodo and any other "advanced" process DOES NOT make good beer. However, making good beer makes GOOD BEER. If your process is **** then you will end up with lodo turds.
Also understand the difference between small and large batches. Yes the macro-brewers do things that we want to emulate, but the benefits may be negligible on a homebrew scale.
Though I'm guilty at times, I am a believer of KISS principles. Rather than saying that "you" over-complicate the process, I would like to suggest that you first understand the process, then chose when and where you "want" to drill deeper. Mentioned earlier was temperature control. It may be Unnecessary if you understand your style and choose the appropriate yeast for your environment (provided its within reason).
Simmer vs vigorous boil affects your evaporation rate. Again, neither is incorrect, but you may miss target og if your post boil volume isn't correct. Not wrong by any means, but plan your recipe accordingly.
Sorry everyone for this, but lodo and any other "advanced" process DOES NOT make good beer. However, making good beer makes GOOD BEER. If your process is **** then you will end up with lodo turds.
Also understand the difference between small and large batches. Yes the macro-brewers do things that we want to emulate, but the benefits may be negligible on a homebrew scale.
aeviaanah
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2012
- Messages
- 1,686
- Reaction score
- 217
I propose pitching fresh yeast is another angle to consider rather than pitch rate. Why I can’t say for certain. Anyone?
Well I'd rather pitch a little fresh active yeast than a gallon of dead yeast.
Reading this thread has been interesting. At the risk of hurting some feelings, here’s my take (as if anyone cares ).
The only things really necessary to make beer are water, malted grain, hops, and yeast, plus vessels appropriate to the chosen process. Anything beyond that is a matter of personal preference. Yes, the grist must be mashed. But, as many have noted here, the range of mash temps is pretty forgiving. Yes, water chemistry can make a difference, but adding the other ingredients to the water available will make beer. Often quite good beer. Fermentation temps should be within the range at which the chosen yeast will perform its best, but there are many yeasts to choose from and some are quite forgiving.
Shiny equipment, trick siht, digitally controlled, automated systems are cool, but are more of an expression of a particular brewer’s brains:money ratio and, often, little more than an exercise in dick waving. $20K worth of bling doesn’t guarantee good beer any more than $5K worth of golf clubs will make a chronic slice disappear.
The OP specifically asked about the least important aspect of making good beer. Who gets to decide what “good” is? Taste is highly variable, and easily called into question. Just look at what the best-selling beers in America are. I’m an old guy. I’ve been drinking “craft beer” since that term meant anything other than an American Lager, which, at the time, was usually an import. I don’t claim to possess a particularly refined palate, but I know what tastes good, to me, and what doesn’t. I’ve also learned that, if I’m going to share my beer with others, I need to make beer that will appeal to a wide range of beer drinkers, who have in common the fact that they usually drink light beer, but are open to trying something else. “Something else”, in my experience, means beers from a relatively narrow selection of traditional beer styles. The outliers, the “stand-in-line-for-hours-to-pay-$100-a-case” beers aren’t going to appeal to my circle of beer drinkers, so I’ve concentrated on brewing relatively basic, classic, beer styles. The most common comment I’ve gotten from the 50, or so, folks with whom I’ve shared my beer has been “Geez, I’ve paid money for beer that didn’t taste this good”. So, if I can make beer that is as good as, or better than, commercial beers of the same style, in the opinions of a random sample of beer drinkers, can I claim to make “good” beer?Does that mean that my ghetto-quality, 3 vessel system, and the process I’ve developed using it, is perfect? Again, who gets to decide?
We’re making beer here, not chemotherapy drugs. We don’t need lab-quality equipment, instruments or practices. We need the basic ingredients, the minimum complement of tools and equipment, and an easily repeatable process. Oh, and we need to have fun while we’re doing this. Everything else is unnecessary. In my opinion, of course.
).The only things really necessary to make beer are water, malted grain, hops, and yeast, plus vessels appropriate to the chosen process. Anything beyond that is a matter of personal preference. Yes, the grist must be mashed. But, as many have noted here, the range of mash temps is pretty forgiving. Yes, water chemistry can make a difference, but adding the other ingredients to the water available will make beer. Often quite good beer. Fermentation temps should be within the range at which the chosen yeast will perform its best, but there are many yeasts to choose from and some are quite forgiving.
Shiny equipment, trick siht, digitally controlled, automated systems are cool, but are more of an expression of a particular brewer’s brains:money ratio and, often, little more than an exercise in dick waving. $20K worth of bling doesn’t guarantee good beer any more than $5K worth of golf clubs will make a chronic slice disappear.
The OP specifically asked about the least important aspect of making good beer. Who gets to decide what “good” is? Taste is highly variable, and easily called into question. Just look at what the best-selling beers in America are. I’m an old guy. I’ve been drinking “craft beer” since that term meant anything other than an American Lager, which, at the time, was usually an import. I don’t claim to possess a particularly refined palate, but I know what tastes good, to me, and what doesn’t. I’ve also learned that, if I’m going to share my beer with others, I need to make beer that will appeal to a wide range of beer drinkers, who have in common the fact that they usually drink light beer, but are open to trying something else. “Something else”, in my experience, means beers from a relatively narrow selection of traditional beer styles. The outliers, the “stand-in-line-for-hours-to-pay-$100-a-case” beers aren’t going to appeal to my circle of beer drinkers, so I’ve concentrated on brewing relatively basic, classic, beer styles. The most common comment I’ve gotten from the 50, or so, folks with whom I’ve shared my beer has been “Geez, I’ve paid money for beer that didn’t taste this good”. So, if I can make beer that is as good as, or better than, commercial beers of the same style, in the opinions of a random sample of beer drinkers, can I claim to make “good” beer?Does that mean that my ghetto-quality, 3 vessel system, and the process I’ve developed using it, is perfect? Again, who gets to decide?
We’re making beer here, not chemotherapy drugs. We don’t need lab-quality equipment, instruments or practices. We need the basic ingredients, the minimum complement of tools and equipment, and an easily repeatable process. Oh, and we need to have fun while we’re doing this. Everything else is unnecessary. In my opinion, of course.
Enjoyment...
Unlike sports where a really fun player to watch is one who gets satisfaction in being the best, being satisfied with your brew does not make a good beer. Knowing what you're doing and then executing does.
Unlike sports where a really fun player to watch is one who gets satisfaction in being the best, being satisfied with your brew does not make a good beer. Knowing what you're doing and then executing does.
If you enjoy the beer and the process makes you happy, why not?
Seriously, who gets to decide? Who is the Grand Poobah of beer?
You'd be effing surprised at what flies.
NEVER! That could make the difference between a $8.40 10 gal batch. Or a $9.15 batch! And i don't worrie about the gluco for body, but everytime i have to add sugar to a batch to get my 1.060, i'm ashamed of myself....
(and damn, 2 pages already?)
Beernik
Well-Known Member
Fining agents: whirfloc, Irish moss, isinglass & I already have them up.
I know I already posted, but I'm going to +1 on efficiency. I've been chasing that elusive rabbit for months now, researching better ways of getting the most out of my mash, and I finally decided I don't give a flying.....goat. As long as my beers are 5-6% (as that's what I'm usually aiming for), and I can get that by extending the boil, who cares. Brewing something tasty that I want in my glass is the desired end result. And using less grain, but maybe more water, to get there, la de dah, I plan my brewdays for 6+ hours anyway so I have time. I know I should also +1 to fermentation temps as well, since the best lager I've done so far this year got up to 88 when the ferment fridge futzed, but I'm not that brave.
OT, somebody needs to find an emoji of a flying goat.
OT, somebody needs to find an emoji of a flying goat.
Same here, I hate doing cleanup especially after a few beers. I usually want to just listen to music and be lazy after that lol. No beers for me usually unless I'm brewing with other people or finished cleaning
I have to agree. I've recently upped my batch size to 5g from 2.5g, and a getting 7.5 gallons to a 'rolling boil' is impossible on my electric stove. However, it is strong enough to get a simmering boil. Hasn't affected my beer quality whatsoever. In actuality my 5g batches with weak boils turned out really good.
I think this was on tap at a local hipster bar, the neards were in full force and they were raving about the new fresh-squeezed 420ibu cranbraisen milkshake mokaccino sour bareel aged neipa.
BrewMan13
Whole Nother Level Brewing
For me, least important is oxygenation. I know yeast need oxygen, but I've noticed little difference with actively using pure oxygen or without it. I already bought the wand, so I still do it.
Yeast pitch count has been brought up a lot. I agree yeast are hardy critters and exact count may not matter, but I noticed a huge difference once I started using some kind of yeast starter instead of none. That and keeping some kind of semi-controlled fermentation temp were my biggest sources of improvement.
Yeast pitch count has been brought up a lot. I agree yeast are hardy critters and exact count may not matter, but I noticed a huge difference once I started using some kind of yeast starter instead of none. That and keeping some kind of semi-controlled fermentation temp were my biggest sources of improvement.
Disagree. I brewed for about 9 1/2 years and used campden tablets to make sure to neutralize chlorine/chloramine. I had dialed in basically everything else about my process.
Switched to RO+minerals, and my beers markedly improved immediately. I consider it indispensible.
(Your mileage may vary. I'm dealing with SoCal water which is not great to begin with, so if you have a much better water source, just removing chlorine might work for you.)
I get some crust along the top of the mash, and across the top of the boil, from grain bits [mash] or break material [boil], that doesn't come off with just a hose blast. I do scrub that gunk off before putting the equipment away at the end of the brew day.
But yeah, I don't know why anyone would sanitize their mash tun or boil kettle prior to use. Anything hot-side will be sanitized by heat.
For the OP's question, my answers are these:
1) Three-vessel brewing.
I started brewing and moved to a three-vessel single-tier system with two pumps before BIAB became a thing. I still do it. I still like it. But it's certainly a HECK of a lot more work, a HECK of a lot more cleaning, etc than BIAB.
If I had to give up something, I would go from three-vessel to BIAB. I've seen absolutely nothing that suggests that there is any meaningful difference or reduction as far as beer quality by going to BIAB.
2) Aggressive chilling down to pitch temp
Here in SoCal, I can't get ground water below ~80 degrees in the summer. In the winter, I can't get ground water cold enough to chill to lager temps. Previously I've been pretty anal about getting my temperatures through the chiller down low enough to immediately pitch yeast, and I usually like my pitching temp to be 3-5 degrees below my target temp.
This has required the use of ice water running through the CFC to hit pitching temps. That usually requires spending several days freezing 1 gal ziplock freezer bags full of water, or spending money for 40 lbs of ice. That's a pain.
I think the better answer is going to be to use the hose water through the CFC to get the initial chill, i.e. enough to get the cold break and maybe get the temp of the beer down to the 100-120 degree range. Then throw it in the fermentation fridge and get it down to pitch temps, and pitch the next day.
I realize that there is *some* risk to this. But I think the benefit of ease and of reducing brew day time and reducing work/cost a little bit is worth it.
1) Three-vessel brewing.
I started brewing and moved to a three-vessel single-tier system with two pumps before BIAB became a thing. I still do it. I still like it. But it's certainly a HECK of a lot more work, a HECK of a lot more cleaning, etc than BIAB.
If I had to give up something, I would go from three-vessel to BIAB. I've seen absolutely nothing that suggests that there is any meaningful difference or reduction as far as beer quality by going to BIAB.
2) Aggressive chilling down to pitch temp
Here in SoCal, I can't get ground water below ~80 degrees in the summer. In the winter, I can't get ground water cold enough to chill to lager temps. Previously I've been pretty anal about getting my temperatures through the chiller down low enough to immediately pitch yeast, and I usually like my pitching temp to be 3-5 degrees below my target temp.
This has required the use of ice water running through the CFC to hit pitching temps. That usually requires spending several days freezing 1 gal ziplock freezer bags full of water, or spending money for 40 lbs of ice. That's a pain.
I think the better answer is going to be to use the hose water through the CFC to get the initial chill, i.e. enough to get the cold break and maybe get the temp of the beer down to the 100-120 degree range. Then throw it in the fermentation fridge and get it down to pitch temps, and pitch the next day.
I realize that there is *some* risk to this. But I think the benefit of ease and of reducing brew day time and reducing work/cost a little bit is worth it.
Agree with this ^
I just started BIAB as opposed to a cooler having done both batch sparge and no sparge and not only is it easier, the beer is just as good if not better
I also cannot cool down fast enough being also in San Diego... much lower risk to wait 10-12 hours and pitch at the proper temp... Haven't tasted any off flavors from the wort sitting for that time
I just started BIAB as opposed to a cooler having done both batch sparge and no sparge and not only is it easier, the beer is just as good if not better
I also cannot cool down fast enough being also in San Diego... much lower risk to wait 10-12 hours and pitch at the proper temp... Haven't tasted any off flavors from the wort sitting for that time
I would expand on this and say you can skip quick chilling at all. The no-chill folks do it all the time. I chill with an ice bath, which is faster than no-chill, but it still doesn't always eliminate chill haze. Just leave the bottles in the fridge long enough to drop this out if it bothers you.
I'm gonna +3 (or wherever we are, I'm tired) to this as well. I can't get my wort below 77 in the summer with our groundwater, so I too just throw the fermenter in the fridge (if a lager) to get it to pitching temperature; if an ale, as long as it's below 78, I just say the heck with it and pitch. Yeast will get going faster, and as long as the majority of the time in the ferment fridge is at acceptable levels, won't hurt it. Having a good ferment fridge with a reliable temperature controller helps.
I think my one process to skip would be transferring to secondary. I don't ever do that, just throw my dry hops, fruit, whatever in tha bucket. I'm lucky in that my tap water is so good a Saki brewery located here for just the water. I'll add a bit of Gypsum for really hoppy beers, but that's it.
I have a streamlined process; BIAB partial mash, dunk sparge, boil and just do 3 hop additions. FWH, 20min for flavor and flame out/whirlpool at the end along with the LME. Pitch the right amount of dry yeast rounded to the nearest packet, usually US-04 or S-05. Ferment in a bucket, shake for a minute to oxygenate. Add something to the primary like dry hops if applicable and keg when it hits TG.
Only a change in my equipment would cause a change in process.
I have a streamlined process; BIAB partial mash, dunk sparge, boil and just do 3 hop additions. FWH, 20min for flavor and flame out/whirlpool at the end along with the LME. Pitch the right amount of dry yeast rounded to the nearest packet, usually US-04 or S-05. Ferment in a bucket, shake for a minute to oxygenate. Add something to the primary like dry hops if applicable and keg when it hits TG.
Only a change in my equipment would cause a change in process.
brewbama
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2013
- Messages
- 3,739
- Reaction score
- 2,509
I have worked on my processes to be very consistent brew to brew. So to ask me which process I would give up would be extremely difficult for me. I suppose running my wort chiller water thru a pre chiller ice bucket could be a candidate but I like to get a fast cold break so it would be hard to give up especially in the Summer.
Equipment-wise is easy: hop spider. I went hop commando in my kettle years ago. Of course using whole hops helps.
Ingredients would be water minerals (other than Calcium Chloride and Gypsum). I could give up table salt, mag sulfate, pickling lime, etc pretty quickly. I’ll even give up lactic acid if I can use acidulated malt.
I gave up style guidelines years ago as well. I brew blonde, pale, amber, brown, black, and stout (extra black?) beers using as few malts as possible to reach the goal. I hit ‘style’ with hops and yeast. If little dots don’t align perfectly inside the left and right range fan limits I could care less.
Equipment-wise is easy: hop spider. I went hop commando in my kettle years ago. Of course using whole hops helps.
Ingredients would be water minerals (other than Calcium Chloride and Gypsum). I could give up table salt, mag sulfate, pickling lime, etc pretty quickly. I’ll even give up lactic acid if I can use acidulated malt.
I gave up style guidelines years ago as well. I brew blonde, pale, amber, brown, black, and stout (extra black?) beers using as few malts as possible to reach the goal. I hit ‘style’ with hops and yeast. If little dots don’t align perfectly inside the left and right range fan limits I could care less.
Last edited:
anotherbeerplease
Well-Known Member
#s in general. Throw some grains at some warm water for a while and boil it. Introduce yeast and you have beer.
- chilling wort (no chill work great)
- vigorous boil 60 or 90 minutes (20 minutes simmering is enough)
- dry yeast rehydration or oxigenation
- boil kettle fining
- precise regulation of mash or fermentation temperature
- cold crash
- excessive hygiene (hot water is enough for hot side and fermenter)
- fragmented hop addition (FWH for bitterness, hopstand for flavor and dryhop for aroma is enough)
- strict adherence to style rules
This is my experience.
- vigorous boil 60 or 90 minutes (20 minutes simmering is enough)
- dry yeast rehydration or oxigenation
- boil kettle fining
- precise regulation of mash or fermentation temperature
- cold crash
- excessive hygiene (hot water is enough for hot side and fermenter)
- fragmented hop addition (FWH for bitterness, hopstand for flavor and dryhop for aroma is enough)
- strict adherence to style rules
This is my experience.
*Unless entering a competition.
I've thought about it a few times, but it seems like more effort than I'm interested in putting forth. I brew for me. I grill, cook, bake, ferment or whatever for me (or for you if you ask). But I only seek my own approval (and kind of my wife).
I am pretty confident that there is a significant flavor difference between a 15 min hop addition and a hopstand addition. If you are looking for the earthy/spicy hop flavors from a more traditional IPA/Pale Ale then you will miss those with just hopstand hops. If instead you want the floral/fruity hop aromas then you can move all hops to a hopstand.
Similar threads
