Aeration: splashing vs whirlpooling w drill

[ph0ngwh0ng]

Hi!

Just thought I'd drop a note to say that since the beginning I was splashing the wort around in the fermenter (carboy) as an aerating technique. Thought that was doing the job. Fermentation though, took forever to start (36-48 hours)

But, I got tired of waiting for my wort to cool (using an immersion chiller) so I rigged a ghetto drill stand and started using this, at very low speed, to agitate the wort during the cool down phase. And then, after it's done, running the drill full speed for 2 minutes.

Oh.

My.

GOD!

Can you say 3-4 hours lag time? I changed nothing else in my process. Same starter size, etc.

To me, it's just the next best thing to having to get (and therefore, buy$$$) an oxygen setup. Already had all of the stuff laying around my shed, and got aeration to the next level. Hurrah!

:rockin:

 

[Qhrumphf]

As far as I understand (not really a winemaker), that's the winemaking way of doing things. My club president does it that way. It does suffer the same limitation that any other non-pure O2/diffusion stone method does, and that's the limited content of oxygen in the atmosphere making it physically impossible, if you ran that drill for hours, to get a truly ideal amount of oxygen. I've been using an aquarium pump, inline filter, and diffusion stone, and usually run it for 90 seconds to two minutes, and it's worked for me thus far. Although I'm thinking of moving to pure O2

 

[ruger988]

I admittedly haven't been brewing long (about a year with 12 batches to date) but with the exception of my first batch, I've always used a drill to aerate (after letting the wort "drop" a foot or so into primary with an auto-siphon) and have never had any kind of lag time with any of my brews. Even before I did starters I'd have active fermentation going within 5-6 hours. Guess now I know how much of a difference aeration is making.

 

[troy2000]

As far as I understand (not really a winemaker), that's the winemaking way of doing things. My club president does it that way. It does suffer the same limitation that any other non-pure O2/diffusion stone method does, and that's the limited content of oxygen in the atmosphere making it physically impossible, if you ran that drill for hours, to get a truly ideal amount of oxygen. I've been using an aquarium pump, inline filter, and diffusion stone, and usually run it for 90 seconds to two minutes, and it's worked for me thus far. Although I'm thinking of moving to pure O2

It's hard for me to believe yeast requires so much oxygen that you can't get enough out of the atmosphere for it to do its job properly... what did brewers do in the past?

I'll eventually get around to rigging up some sort of aeration device so I can see the difference for myself, but I'm not worried about it... Rght now I run the wort out of my brew kettle into a funnel, through a 1/4" piece of tubing. It sheets around the funnel a time or two, then drains off into the carboy, splashing enough to raise a couple of inches worth of foam by the time I'm done.

I usually brew in the evening, and the yeast is blasting away when I wake up next morning.

 

[brewkinger]

It's hard for me to believe yeast requires so much oxygen that you can't get enough out of the atmosphere for it to do its job properly... what did brewers do in the past?

I'll eventually get around to rigging up some sort of aeration device so I can see the difference for myself, but I'm not worried about it... Rght now I run the wort out of my brew kettle into a funnel, through a 1/4" piece of tubing. It sheets around the funnel a time or two, then drains off into the carboy, splashing enough to raise a couple of inches worth of foam by the time I'm done.

I usually brew in the evening, and the yeast is blasting away when I wake up next morning.

Your current method of transferring is perfectly adequate as far as I am concerned. I have been doing it the same way now for several years. I run it from the kettle through a ball valve and down 12 inches of silicone tubing. It drops about 8-10" into a stainless mesh screened funnel and then falls into the bucket (sometimes carboy).
I also end up with about 5-6" of aerated foam on the surface of the wort and combined with a yeast starter that I usually time to be at high krausen when I am ready for it.
I have seen most, if not all my batches start to ferment within 4 hours.

Until I find a cheaper AND more effective way to aerate, I will continue with this process. The $$ is better spent elsewhere (like ferment temp control).:rockin:

 

[jalmeida]

I usually get four hours or less before airlock activity starts. I just free fall into my bucket fermenters. I place a block under one side to angle so that the wort foams as it hits. This lets me know it is enough. Seems to work, but I am sure it is not the best method. I have to admit that the oxygen method seems like overkill on a homebrew scale to. But, to aerate with a carboy is probably more difficult than a bucket.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[Qhrumphf]

It's hard for me to believe yeast requires so much oxygen that you can't get enough out of the atmosphere for it to do its job properly... what did brewers do in the past?

I'll eventually get around to rigging up some sort of aeration device so I can see the difference for myself, but I'm not worried about it... Rght now I run the wort out of my brew kettle into a funnel, through a 1/4" piece of tubing. It sheets around the funnel a time or two, then drains off into the carboy, splashing enough to raise a couple of inches worth of foam by the time I'm done.

I usually brew in the evening, and the yeast is blasting away when I wake up next morning.

It's a matter of optimum, not required. You can make beer without aeration at all. But better aeration means better beer.

The problem with "this is how they did it in the past" is people often don't stop and think "maybe beer from the past sucked compared to beer today". Science is on our side now. Plenty of data on this in the "Yeast" book by White and Zainasheff.

 

[troy2000]

It's a matter of optimum, not required. You can make beer without aeration at all. But better aeration means better beer.

The problem with "this is how they did it in the past" is people often don't stop and think "maybe beer from the past sucked compared to beer today". Science is on our side now. Plenty of data on this in the "Yeast" book by White and Zainasheff.

No offense intended; I wasn't trying to do an anti-progress "if it was good enough for our forefathers..." riff. We don't need to ditch kegs and CO2 just because the Sumerians didn't have them.

That said, it seems to me mankind and yeast have been teaming up to make beer for several thousand years, and brewer's yeast should be pretty well adapted by now to operating without an oxygen stone.

Just to keep stirring the pot, I found this from Eric Watson Green Bay Distilling, over at BeerTools.com. He says oxygen is used by the yeast to reproduce, not to ferment. Therefore we should be aerating our starters, not our wort. I'm not sure where that leaves those of us who use dry yeast...

WORT AERATION: If possible, don't! The reason is that it is not the wort that needs the oxygen, it is the yeast. By oxgenating the wort instead of the yeast starter, it will cause an over production of cells due to the excessive oxygen presence. This then leads to the production of unwanted esters and higher alcohols that will compromise beer flavor.

When oxygenating starters, you cannot use pure O2... the reason is that the uptake occurs too fast and without a dissolved O2 meter ($$$), you cannot tell when to stop. The way to properly do this one is to aerate using a high pressure aquarium pump, sterile air filter and a stainless steel aeration stone, all of which are redily available. It is virtually impossible to over-aerate using air, so you will avoid oxygen toxicity problems that will occur if trying to do this with pure oxygen."

 

[Qhrumphf]

No offense intended; I wasn't trying to do an anti-progress "if it was good enough for our forefathers..." riff. We don't need to ditch kegs and CO2 just because the Sumerians didn't have them.

That said, it seems to me mankind and yeast have been teaming up to make beer for several thousand years, and brewer's yeast should be pretty well adapted by now to operating without an oxygen stone.

Just to keep stirring the pot, I found this from Eric Watson Green Bay Distilling, over at BeerTools.com. He says oxygen is used by the yeast to reproduce, not to ferment. Therefore we should be aerating our starters, not our wort. I'm not sure where that leaves those of us who use dry yeast...

Except you need reproduction in the full wort to produce the right flavors. The exact level of oxygen can be played with just like pitching rate to tweak things, but if you overpitch into unaerated wort (the only way to do it without major off flavors) you'll end up with dull and lifeless beer. Even in lagers some ester character comes from reproduction, just very subtle to the point you don't notice it. Warm up many lagers enough and you can pick up isoamyl acetate (banana).

There's a balance to strike. Perhaps with distilling where you're looking for little more than ethanol, sure. But they also use turbo yeasts I wouldn't dare use in a beer.

The recommended pitching rates without oxygenation is asking for off flavors. Raising the pitching rate above that is asking for problems too, albeit perhaps not as severe. But based on everything I've read (and I'll trust Chris White) regarding yeast and associated brewing science says aeration of wort is a must.

 

[Nightstrife]

I use the venturi method, that is a small bit of racking cane with a couple of holes drilled In it, as I syphon air is sucked in and mixed with the wort, I also let it "drop" like 8 inches or so. Then I stir the hell out of it with a cleaned/sanitized slotted paddle just before I pitch. And although I didn't see any bubbles in my blowoff this last batch (bucket lid not sealing) I could smell it working within like 6 hours. This seems to work well and I believe there are other improvements to be made elsewhere in my particular process.

 

[troy2000]

Except you need reproduction in the full wort to produce the right flavors. The exact level of oxygen can be played with just like pitching rate to tweak things, but if you overpitch into unaerated wort (the only way to do it without major off flavors) you'll end up with dull and lifeless beer. Even in lagers some ester character comes from reproduction, just very subtle to the point you don't notice it. Warm up many lagers enough and you can pick up isoamyl acetate (banana).

There's a balance to strike. Perhaps with distilling where you're looking for little more than ethanol, sure. But they also use turbo yeasts I wouldn't dare use in a beer.

The recommended pitching rates without oxygenation is asking for off flavors. Raising the pitching rate above that is asking for problems too, albeit perhaps not as severe. But based on everything I've read (and I'll trust Chris White) regarding yeast and associated brewing science says aeration of wort is a must.

I'm certainly no expert. I'm not going to try to reconcile what you're saying with what Watson said, or anoint one of you right and the other wrong. But it does indicate aeration may not be as dead-settled an issue as you believe.....

By the way: Watson isn't speaking from a distiller's viewpoint; that just happens to be where he's working now (or at least where he was working when the passage I quoted was posted at Home Brew Forums). He was brewmaster at Titletown Brewing before that, and apparently he's considered a brewing guru by many folks.

add: I did a little googling. The quote was taken from Episode 1 of Eric Watson's series of articles at Beer Tool, 'The Roving Brewer.' Here's a link: http://www.beertools.com/html/articles.php?view=245

And he sticks to it in the following episodes. He also answers my question about dried yeast: it should have a high enough count to go to work immediately, and therefore shouldn't need oxygenation - either while being rehydrated, or after it goes into the wort.

I don't know how to respond to your insistence that not aerating turns out dull and lifeless beers, except to observe that by your standards my aeration is almost non-existent... yet no one has ever calle my beer 'dull and lifeless.'

 

[Qhrumphf]

I'm certainly no expert. I'm not going to try to reconcile what you're saying with what Watson said, or anoint one of you right and the other wrong. But it does indicate aeration may not be as dead-settled an issue as you believe.....

By the way: Watson isn't speaking from a distiller's viewpoint; that just happens to be where he's working now (or at least where he was working when the passage I quoted was posted at Home Brew Forums). He was brewmaster at Titletown Brewing before that, and apparently he's considered a brewing guru by many folks.

add: I did a little googling. The quote was taken from Episode 1 of Eric Watson's series of articles at Beer Tool, 'The Roving Brewer.' Here's a link: http://www.beertools.com/html/articles.php?view=245

And he sticks to it in the following episodes. He also answers my question about dried yeast: it should have a high enough count to go to work immediately, and therefore shouldn't need oxygenation - either while being rehydrated, or after it goes into the wort.

I don't know how to respond to your insistence that not aerating turns out dull and lifeless beers, except to observe that by your standards my aeration is almost non-existent... yet no one has ever calle my beer 'dull and lifeless.'

I was reading through that, and with all due respect, the guy comes off as a quack to me, simply because what he's saying flies in the face of everything I've ever read, and he's not providing data to back it up, but rather showing a misunderstanding of the science.

My assumption was that he would recommend a pitch well above the established 1 million cells per milliliter per °P, when instead, he recommends doing that, and rather than just not intentionally aerating wort, but actively avoiding it. He claims that you don't want yeast reproducing, but that pitching rate is the a standard middle ground point (high for some, low for others, but a sort of one-size-fits all point) for ales where there's enough growth to create the ester profile needed. And that growth requires oxygen. Period. It's the biology of the yeast. If he'd provide actual data to support the claim, I might give it some credit. The fact that he's advocating pumping air constantly into a starter as opposed to a stir plate (which again is contrary to the proven science of diffusion of gases- it works, but its not effective compared to a stir plate), leads me to doubt him further. But it seems to me he's just misunderstanding the cycles that yeast go through during fermentation. Again, I'll trust Chris White of White Labs, who literally wrote a book on the subject, several years after this was published, so it's not like he's got some new data.

If you're pitching at that rate and not aerating, you're going to have flavor problems that you wouldn't otherwise. That's how you get boozy beers, and excessive esters. If you're pitching enough yeast, it's probably not that bad. But it'd be better with proper aeration. My point about dull and lifeless is when you're pitching so much yeast that they go straight into fermentation without reproduction which was what I thought he was suggesting. As it would crush all (or at least nearly all) ester production, THAT would result in dull and lifeless beer, even in a clean lager.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Huh. Apparently he did a interview on the Brewing Network around the same time that was published, and there's a discussion around this topic here:

http://thebrewingnetwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4000

Edit: This post: http://thebrewingnetwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=31092#p31092 explains where I'm coming from. Introducing so much yeast that you get no growth is bad, but if you don't want to aerate/oxygenate you need to increase pitching rate so that the amount of growth needed is limited. However, that's still contrary to his recommendation to pitch at 1 million cells per milliliter per °P without aeration, as he indicated in the second page of the interview you linked.

 

[Qhrumphf]

In any event, I take back what the quack comment. Seems he's well informed, however I don't think he's as informed as some others. You'll also see his recommendation to hop starters is refuted in the Brewing Network thread, and he concedes he was taught bad information on that part.

End point here is I guess to let the beer speak for itself. I've found (routinely) that without aeration, my beers are substantially worse and require more conditioning time than if I aerate them, and I aerate my starters constantly on a stir plate. But if something else works for you, then do it.

 

[troy2000]

I was reading through that, and with all due respect, the guy comes off as a quack to me, simply because what he's saying flies in the face of everything I've ever read, and he's not providing data to back it up, but rather showing a misunderstanding of the science.

My assumption was that he would recommend a pitch well above the established 1 million cells per milliliter per °P, when instead, he recommends doing that, and rather than just not intentionally aerating wort, but actively avoiding it. He claims that you don't want yeast reproducing, but that pitching rate is the a standard middle ground point (high for some, low for others, but a sort of one-size-fits all point) for ales where there's enough growth to create the ester profile needed. And that growth requires oxygen. Period. It's the biology of the yeast. If he'd provide actual data to support the claim, I might give it some credit. The fact that he's advocating pumping air constantly into a starter as opposed to a stir plate (which again is contrary to the proven science of diffusion of gases- it works, but its not effective compared to a stir plate), leads me to doubt him further. But it seems to me he's just misunderstanding the cycles that yeast go through during fermentation. Again, I'll trust Chris White of White Labs, who literally wrote a book on the subject, several years after this was published, so it's not like he's got some new data.

If you're pitching at that rate and not aerating, you're going to have flavor problems that you wouldn't otherwise. That's how you get boozy beers, and excessive esters. If you're pitching enough yeast, it's probably not that bad. But it'd be better with proper aeration. My point about dull and lifeless is when you're pitching so much yeast that they go straight into fermentation without reproduction which was what I thought he was suggesting. As it would crush all (or at least nearly all) ester production, THAT would result in dull and lifeless beer, even in a clean lager.

Again, I'm no expert. But you're coming on a little strong when you call Watson a 'quack,' since he seems to have made his living in the brewing industry for years. And although you dismiss everything he says as worthless because you haven't seen his data, I haven't seen yours....

How is advocating constant aeration over the use of a stir plate 'contrary to the laws of diffusion' - especially if you aren't providing the stir vessel with fresh air? To quote Martin Brungard (brewmaster and author of the Bru’n Water Spreadsheet):

Unless you are pumping filtered air into the starter vessel while its on the stir plate, you aren't getting a good aeration of the wort during its growth phase. Stirring is very good for improving the transfer of gases from the atmosphere above the wort, into the wort. But if the atmosphere above the wort is depleted of oxygen, all the stirring in the world won't make any difference. During active fermentation, that atmosphere will have little oxygen and a high percentage of CO2.

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=11697.0

 

[troy2000]

In any event, I take back what the quack comment. Seems he's well informed, however I don't think he's as informed as some others. You'll also see his recommendation to hop starters is refuted in the Brewing Network thread, and he concedes he was taught bad information on that part.

End point here is I guess to let the beer speak for itself. I've found (routinely) that without aeration, my beers are substantially worse and require more conditioning time than if I aerate them, and I aerate my starters constantly on a stir plate. But if something else works for you, then do it.

You posted this while I was typing my last, and I'm too lazy to go back and edit it. You're right; in the end the beer will speak for itself - and if something works for you, that's what counts.

 

[Qhrumphf]

How is advocating constant aeration over the use of a stir plate 'contrary to the laws of diffusion' - especially if you aren't providing the stir vessel with fresh air? To quote Martin Brungard (brewmaster and author of the Bru’n Water Spreadsheet):

Which is also true. I'm searching for the experiment (I believe it was Kai Troester but I don't recall for sure) but someone measured the O2 in starters done various methods, and undisturburbed with an airlock was the least (obviously) where uncovered on a stir plate was the highest. However, for also hopefully obvious reasons an uncovered stir plate is inviting contamination and a bad plan.

The problem with simply using a stone and an aquarium pump is that while it adds some oxygen, most of the oxygen added simply rises to the surface in the bubbles, and doesn't actually diffuse. It's much better than simply pumping in air without a stone, but surface exchange is what gets the most air in there, hence the stir plate (and hence why the Mr. Malty calculator provides a slightly higher growth figure for stir plate over constant aeration). Martin Brungard is entirely right, which is why I cover my starters with a foam stopper to allow air exchange in an out of the starter, and why you're not supposed to cover a starter with an airlock.

Perhaps the best course of action is both a stir plate AND pumping in of air (although not pure oxygen, as that would oversaturate and damage the yeast even faster than what Mr. Watson was warning about).

Edit: Just read through the thread you linked, and that's exactly what Brungard is suggesting. I might have to start doing that then.

 

[ph0ngwh0ng]

While I wasn't meaning to start a debate on the subject, I do appreciate to stir up generally accepted ideas and challenge my assumptions.

So, basically, what you're saying is that we should be overpitching (as per accepted standard), readily providing the wort with enough yeast to ferment, and thoroughly avoid any substantial aeration before pitching?

EDIT (read a bit more):

MABrungard, in the supplied thread

This does not change the fact that oxygenation is best for wort when making beer. But for a starter and its differing oxygen requirement, continuous aeration with air is more suitable.

Also, how do you reconcile your views with every yeast labs telling us to aerate the wort?

 

[Qhrumphf]

While I wasn't meaning to start a debate on the subject, I do appreciate to stir up generally accepted ideas and challenge my assumptions.

So, basically, what you're saying is that we should be overpitching (as per accepted standard), readily providing the wort with enough yeast to ferment, and thoroughly avoid any substantial aeration before pitching?

EDIT (read a bit more):

MABrungard, in the supplied thread


Also, how do you reconcile your views with every yeast labs telling us to aerate the wort?

Seems to me that avoiding aeration of the wort, and overpitching to compensate is a potentially viable solution, but very much a minority stance. If you want to try it and if it works for you, then great, but given that most homebrewers underpitch even for the levels of oxygen already recommended, where most homebrewers also already underaerate, this isn't something I would recommend personally. White Labs recommends a minimum 8-10ppm of dissolved oxygen, and it's physically impossible to exceed 8ppm with dissolved air, and the figure should be on the higher end for high gravity beers, ie impossible to attain the right rate without pure oxygen. So unless you have the set up and the now know to substantially increase your pitch rate (to what level, I don't know? all the accepted pitching rate guidelines that have proven successful in practice operate under the assumption of aeration/oxygenation of the full wort) I wouldn't do it myself.

Again, this topic is covered very extensively by Chris White (of White Labs) and Jamil Zainasheff in their book "Yeast: The Practical Guide to Beer Fermentation".

 

[fearwig]

The repeated bucket-to-bucket pour gets you the most surface area exposure and most visible froth of any air-based method, in the least amount of time. Some people have the idea it increases contamination risk from air exposure, which is nonsensical since air exposure is the aim. You are introducing fewer foreign surfaces--just two sanitized buckets, one of which may be your fermenter. Try it, and watch your lag time drop. You don't even have to pour the whole volume in each pour for it to work. Couldn't be simpler.

It is a million miles from the shake method in effectiveness, don't confuse them.

 

[fearwig]

Overpitch and under-aeration is not a viable option if you want to make good beer. You might get away with it on beers with absolutely no yeast character, if you're really lucky, but it is not good practice in any way. Waste of time and money on bigger starters, which you could just put into simple aeration.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Overpitch and under-aeration is not a viable option if you want to make good beer. You might get away with it on beers with absolutely no yeast character, if you're really lucky, but it is not good practice in any way. Waste of time and money on bigger starters, which you could just put into simple aeration.

My sentiments exactly. Even if it works on some beers its not worth it as general practice.

 

[ph0ngwh0ng]

Overpitch and under-aeration is not a viable option if you want to make good beer. You might get away with it on beers with absolutely no yeast character, if you're really lucky, but it is not good practice in any way. Waste of time and money on bigger starters, which you could just put into simple aeration.

What I think also and is what I've read everywhere, but I was curious to hear about the practical side of that method (how its done) since troy2000 seemed to have some valid references on the subject (watson, brungard, ...) which all recommend oxygenating the starter, although Brungard emits some reserve on the subject. Oh well, was curious is all.

So, pretty much happy with my drill thing, since I don't ferment in buckets (glass carboy is the ONLY way to ferment hahaha), there's no way to splash from one bucket to another. Also, seems like a PITA to lug 5 gallons of wort back and forth, up and down..

I would definitely be curious to see if those venturi effect drilled hoses really work that well. Have not been able to find any evidence other than people saying it works (like me and my drill, for instance haha)

 

[Nightstrife]

I would definitely be curious to see if those venturi effect drilled hoses really work that well. Have not been able to find any evidence other than people saying it works (like me and my drill, for instance haha)

I don't think the venturi works any better than drill/splash transfer/drop/vigorous stiring/fish tank air pump. The ultimate idea is to expose the wort to the maximum amount of air and thus helping to diffuse more oxygen. As most of this thread has debated about the whethertoos and the whyfors, my vote is to aerate any way possible. Thus I use the venturi/drop/stir method. I figure without spending loads of time and money I can achieve a repeatable product.

 

[fearwig]

Also, seems like a PITA to lug 5 gallons of wort back and forth, up and down..

You'll find it only weighs 40lbs if you get rid of all that breakable dead weight! Got a nice little handle too...

 

[HB_in_Subic]

I choose to brew by the KISS principle. I aerate my wort from the brewing kettle via a ball valve directly into the fermenting bucket (about 2' above it). I always end up with a 3-5" layer of froth on top before I pitch my yeast. In about 2 hours I have enough pressure to make the blow off bubble (by pressing the plastic lid of the bucket). Like troy2000, the next morning I usually find the batching bubbling away. Typically I end up having to pour off and replace the sanitizer from the blow off by mid-day. I have yet to make a bad batch "knock on wood"...

 

[ph0ngwh0ng]

I don't think the venturi works any better than drill/splash transfer/drop/vigorous stiring/fish tank air pump. The ultimate idea is to expose the wort to the maximum amount of air and thus helping to diffuse more oxygen. As most of this thread has debated about the whethertoos and the whyfors, my vote is to aerate any way possible. Thus I use the venturi/drop/stir method. I figure without spending loads of time and money I can achieve a repeatable product.

Hi!

Just thought I'd drop a note to say that since the beginning I was splashing the wort around in the fermenter (carboy) as an aerating technique. Thought that was doing the job. Fermentation though, took forever to start (36-48 hours)

But, I got tired of waiting for my wort to cool (using an immersion chiller) so I rigged a ghetto drill stand and started using this, at very low speed, to agitate the wort during the cool down phase. And then, after it's done, running the drill full speed for 2 minutes.

Oh.

My.

GOD!

Can you say 3-4 hours lag time? I changed nothing else in my process. Same starter size, etc.

To me, it's just the next best thing to having to get (and therefore, buy$$$) an oxygen setup. Already had all of the stuff laying around my shed, and got aeration to the next level. Hurrah!

:rockin:

I'm sticking to it. Although if I have to chose: Good results + already cooling with a drill = just happy to make the yeast (therefore myself) happier using zero bucks more (for me).

 

[jalmeida]

Just as every cook thinks their way of making a quiche is the only right way, the same with brewers be it amateur home brewer or professional. I find it funny that people still argue for their methods and against others when at the end of the day the result should be to make a unique and good beer that is enjoyed. Unless of course we are all just copying other breweries' beers? Not that the discussion doesn't yield useful information. But, I think often times people fail to recognize a few key elements to the approach the brewer takes at creating what they like. The fact is the brew community is separated by the scientific brewers who see things as black and white and follow strict doctrine. Then their are the brewers that see the gray area and loosely follow doctrine. While some of the best beers in the world have been professionally brewed using both approaches, ultimately you as the home brewer should pick your method of brewing that you can enjoy. Just make sure you enjoy it.

I am a gray brewer and I enjoy trying new and risky things in the hopes of finding a unique beer. I am still learning and enjoy what I do.




Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[Nightstrife]

just as every cook thinks their way of making a quiche is the only right way, the same with brewers be it amateur home brewer or professional. I find it funny that people still argue for their methods and against others when at the end of the day the result should be to make a unique and good beer that is enjoyed. Unless of course we are all just copying other breweries' beers? Not that the discussion doesn't yield useful information. But, i think often times people fail to recognize a few key elements to the approach the brewer takes at creating what they like. The fact is the brew community is separated by the scientific brewers who see things as black and white and follow strict doctrine. Then their are the brewers that see the gray area and loosely follow doctrine. While some of the best beers in the world have been professionally brewed using both approaches, ultimately you as the home brewer should pick your method of brewing that you can enjoy. Just make sure you enjoy it.

I am a gray brewer and i enjoy trying new and risky things in the hops of finding a unique beer. I am still learning and enjoy what i do.




Sent from my iphone using home brew

very well said!

 

[scampbellatc]

I'm new to brewing and up until this last brew, I have just swirled the carboy after pitching. After reading about oxygenation, I thought I'd try it out and see how it affected the process/taste. Brewed it last week and used a starter. Oxygenated for 1 minute and then pitched yeast. Usually I end up with a good little cake yeast at the bottom of the carboy (usually takes about 18-24 hours to begin fermentation). After oxygenating, I ended up with about a 2" yeast cake on the bottom! Fermentation was fast and vigorous. Just transferred to the secondary today and will be there for 1-2 weeks. I'll update when I crack one open and see how it tastes.


Cheers!