AM I Crazy? Or should beer be simple and enjoyable?

[RustyHorn]

Well, heck, "our ancestors" from just 50 years ago likely didn't care about any of that either.
Beer was functional and likely wholly unexciting. Not something I care to emulate...

Cheers!

Maybe not in the USA, but in Europe it was! Since the British developed Pale Malt (before pale malt was air dried malt which tasted grassy) 300 years ago, modern beer was born. With that came porters, pale ale, lager etc. Complex beers were in abundance - when the British developed Russian Imperial Stout they weren't doing it because it was simple! And mouthfeel? Of course they worried about that. The industrial revolution started mass brewing so major brewers were competing for sales.
You do realise that dry hopping, hazy beer, and speciality grains like Crystal and the use of oats in beer are also hundreds of years old?

 

[Big Monk]

I’m definitely no martyr.

My one true joy are my brewing spreadsheets. They, I have been told, have helped many people. That pleases me greatly.

 

[SEndorf]

I agree that commercial breweries from 300 years ago were quite sophisticated given the technology of their time. Perhaps what day_trippr (and others) are referring to are the ancestral home brewers who didn't sit and wring their hands over LODO, and "oxygen ingress from bottle caps"... etc....

 

[Qhrumphf]

Ancestral brewers did the best they could with the scientific knowledge of their time.

Their beer was still in all likelihood subpar compared to modern beer. In the case of one of the biggest revolutions in science, Pasteur and the knowledge of microscopic life including yeast and bacteria (and consequently pure strain fermentation), that's a key turning point before which I emphatically doubt "good" beer by any modern metric, especially not with any degree of time.

Our duty to them is to continue improving as that science continues to evolve.

Rather than some romantic notion of ancient brewing.

 

[SEndorf]

Sorry.... I'm sticking to my romantic notion.
Reading of these breweries is fascinating. I find an incredible passion. Much of it trial and error. e.g. They didn't know WHY Burton on Trent produced superior beer. Much later after the advent of water testing did they figure it out. If they can figure out the nuances of water, I'm not convinced their product was sub-par.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Sorry.... I'm sticking to my romantic notion.
Reading of these breweries is fascinating. I find an incredible passion. Much of it trial and error. e.g. They didn't know WHY Burton on Trent produced superior beer. Much later after the advent of water testing did they figure it out. If they can figure out the nuances of water, I'm not convinced their product was sub-par.

The point is that one can use modern science to do what they did better.

I brought up German brewing earlier in this thread for this reason.

Brewing traditions dating back a millenia. Perfected with modern science beyond brewers elsewhere in the world.

 

[SEndorf]

The point is that one can use modern science to do what they did better.

I brought up German brewing earlier in this thread for this reason.

Brewing traditions dating back a millenia. Perfected with modern science beyond brewers elsewhere in the world.

We're really on the same page here.
I'm just impressed with what they accomplished with what they had.

 

[Qhrumphf]

We're really on the same page here.
I'm just impressed with what they accomplished with what they had.

Oh absolutely. One need only look at any acienct city, let alone any of the "wonders" built by ancient humans where we're still not sure HOW they did it, to understand that at our best human beings are a profoundly brilliant creature.

 

[kh54s10]

My point is that calling a recipe 'simple' based solely on it's ingredient list is kind of silly because it ignores the process portion of the recipe. We are kind of spoiled because we can go to a LHBS and buy barley prepared 50 different ways, but @bracconiere can take that recipe with 2-row, roasted barley, chocolate malt, Munich and crystal 60 and re-write it to combine those to just 1 ingredient (raw barley), add more steps to the process side, and end up with the exact same beer. So is it really 5 ingredients or 1?

OK, I guess I get it. But when you cook raw barley and combine many different ones it is now not "simple". In fact the process of making your own malts takes it out of "simple", even if you only use a couple.

 

[mongoose33]

One thing that seems to be pervasive anymore as that brewing should be "fun". I can't think of a single part of the process that is actually fun for me. I want the best beer I can make and if I have to suffer the process to get it, then so be it. If brewing is "enjoyable" for you, then you are a masochist of sorts.

Different strokes and all that. For me, it's the whole process that's fun.

I find creating things fun. I find solving the problems of brewing fun. Heck, as...involved...as trying to do LODO brewing has been, the complexity of it--and increasingly mastering it...is fun.

Heck, even cleaning at one level is fun. It's a sign of good wort, or good beer, made and moving on in the process. Taking something that's dirty and making it clean and ready to do it again? It's like completing a circle.

I guess it's all in how you define what you're doing. I like brewing. There's just something satisfying about being able to take uncrushed grain and move it through a process where it can feed yeast which will, in its zeal to consume the sugar, produce a magical elixir for me.

 

[Bilsch]

I seriously doubt that beer was any good 300 years ago compared to modern product. There were too many things they just didn't understand nor have any control over.

Consider that hand washing didn't become common until about a hundred years ago and the toothbrush wasn't even invented until 1938. Yea I'm gonna pass on that lead tankard of bubonic brown ale.

 

[SEndorf]

I seriously doubt that beer was any good 300 years ago compared to modern product. There were just too many things they just didn't understand nor have any control over.

Consider that hand washing didn't become common until about a hundred years ago and the toothbrush wasn't even invented until 1938. Yea I'm gonna pass on that tankard of bubonic brown ale.

From the archives:

1798 Barclay Perkins Pale Stout
18.25 lb. Pale 2 Row
4 oz. Golding 90 min.
4 oz. Golding 60 min.
OG 1079
FG 1031
SRM 6
IBU 87
Mash at 155

So... What is it you think they didn't understand?

 

[RustyHorn]

I seriously doubt that beer was any good 300 years ago compared to modern product. There were just too many things they just didn't understand nor have any control over.

Consider that hand washing didn't become common until about a hundred years ago and the toothbrush wasn't even invented until 1938. Yea I'm gonna pass on that tankard of bubonic brown ale.

There are plenty of things I don't fully understand but I'm good at. I can move my hand but I couldn't scientifically explain it in detail why it happens. I reckon you'd be surprised just how good their beer was. I would have mostly been sour beer, so as long as you're a fan of those!

 

[Bilsch]

I respect your opinion and I respect you greatly Russ, but I couldn’t disagree more.

I do have young kids however, so 6 hours or more out of a weekend isn’t Zen like for me. It’s time not spent with them. I’m sure my opinion will change as they get older and I can meditate on the process.

My apologies Derek as it may have sounded like I was questioning your choices. Its just that I wish everyone could feel the same joy when toiling away in the brewery.

 

[mongoose33]

From the archives:

1798 Barclay Perkins Pale Stout
18.25 lb. Pale 2 Row
4 oz. Golding 90 min.
4 oz. Golding 60 min.
OG 1079
FG 1031
SRM 6
IBU 87
Mash at 155

So... What is it you think they didn't understand?

Well, given that IBUs weren't defined until the early 20th century....there's one.

And I'll bet you dollars to donuts they couldn't quantify alpha acids so as to ensure they got the same amount of bitterness each time....and I'll bet you they had no good way of determining how to manage yeast like we do today....and I'll bet you there wasn't the kind of consistency you can get today....

 

[RustyHorn]

Well, given that IBUs weren't defined until the early 20th century....there's one.

And I'll bet you dollars to donuts they couldn't quantify alpha acids so as to ensure they got the same amount of bitterness each time....and I'll bet you they had no good way of determining how to manage yeast like we do today....and I'll bet you there wasn't the kind of consistency you can get today....

Just because IBUs weren't defined doesn't mean that there was no bitterness Good beer makes good beer, consistency makes it consistent. The point was that they were making good beer.

 

[BarleyStanding]

I try to keep the processes required to brew my beer as simple and efficient as possible and I don't really sweat it if volume, gravity, efficiency, or whatnot is off a little in the process (they're all interrelated anyway, so you can usually account for one based on another). Sometimes it's a simple beer, sometimes there are new processes to explore. As long as I have fun creating the recipes, brewing the beer, and enjoy drinking the beer coming out of my tap, this is a great hobby. And yes, there's a stinker or two along the way, but that's the learning curve. So, I guess you could call that keeping it simple?

 

[Big Monk]

My apologies Derek as it may have sounded like I was questioning your choices. Its just that I wish everyone could feel the same joy when toiling away in the brewery.

I took it exactly as you intended it Russ.

I just wanted to clarify so I didn’t sound like a martyr!

 

[Big Monk]

Different strokes and all that. For me, it's the whole process that's fun.

I find creating things fun. I find solving the problems of brewing fun. Heck, as...involved...as trying to do LODO brewing has been, the complexity of it--and increasingly mastering it...is fun.

Heck, even cleaning at one level is fun. It's a sign of good wort, or good beer, made and moving on in the process. Taking something that's dirty and making it clean and ready to do it again? It's like completing a circle.

I guess it's all in how you define what you're doing. I like brewing. There's just something satisfying about being able to take uncrushed grain and move it through a process where it can feed yeast which will, in its zeal to consume the sugar, produce a magical elixir for me.

I’m at the point where I really don’t even need to brew. I only brew Trappist style ales anyway and I have a steady stream of Chimay, Rochefort, Westmalle, Orval, Unibroue, and Ommegang available at all local stores.

They make it better than me anyway.

 

[mongoose33]

I’m at the point where I really don’t even need to brew. I only brew Trappist style ales anyway and I have a steady stream of Chimay, Rochefort, Westmalle, Orval, Unibroue, and Ommegang available at all local stores.

They make it better than me anyway.

If I could get beer locally as good as I can brew it, I'd have difficulty devoting the time and money to brewing as well. Probably.

Late this pm I was at a local establishment sipping a beer wishing it was one of mine. Pretty common occurrence for me.

 

[Big Monk]

If I could get beer locally as good as I can brew it, I'd have difficulty devoting the time and money to brewing as well. Probably.

Late this pm I was at a local establishment sipping a beer wishing it was one of mine. Pretty common occurrence for me.

My area (Central NY) is so inundated with good beer that I find it diffucult to want to brew.

I do still enjoy making brewing spreadsheets though.

 

[Bilsch]

From the archives:
So... What is it you think they didn't understand?

That would be a long list...

The most glaring, as was mentioned in an earlier post, was not having access to, nor understanding the reason for, pure yeast cultures.

 

[Samudell]

I want to brew as simple as possible with biab but love the complex flavors of making my own beer. Taste is the only thing that matters to me

 

[ale2theking]

You don't have to do anything you don't want to do. You don't have to read anything you don't want to read, including here on HBT. And you don't have to endorse any methods that don't make you happy.

That said, I don't think anyone knows what our ancestors had for beer. You say their beer tasted good....but do you know that? Or was it simply better than the alternatives, which is to say, maybe compared to our modern beers, our ancestral beers sucked.

Our ancestors had no ferm temp control, no way to manage the yeast that was fermenting for them, and the additions to control sweetness before hops became widely used were....iffy.

We tend to have this romantic vision of our ancestors and their beer, almost as if it was aphrodisiacal in nature.

It wasn't.

Thank you

 

[RustyHorn]

That would be a long list...

The most glaring, as was mentioned in an earlier post, was not having access to, nor understanding the reason for, pure yeast cultures.

I think you're confusing a few things. 300 years ago is not the same as the era before that. 300 years ago was the Industrial Revolution in the United Kingdom (aka Britain, England) and that changed everything. Someone on here claimed that 50 years ago we wouldn't have known much so I pointed out the 300 years ago thing as a marker of the beginning of modern beer, which it was.

Also, with the invention of the first microscope, just over 300 years ago, came yeast propagation. Granted, they still didn't fully understand other parts of the process, but they worked with it. Soured beer was very common so they sold beers in two ways: Mild and Stock. Mild was the quick turn around beer and Stock was the beer contaminated with Brett and left to age.

I have a feeling some of you don't understand just how advanced some things were 300 years ago.

 

[Big Monk]

I think you're confusing a few things. 300 years ago is not the same as the era before that. 300 years ago was the Industrial Revolution in the United Kingdom (aka Britain, England) and that changed everything. Someone on here claimed that 50 years ago we wouldn't have known much so I pointed out the 300 years ago thing as a marker of the beginning of modern beer, which it was.

Also, with the invention of the first microscope, just over 300 years ago, came yeast propagation. Granted, they still didn't fully understand other parts of the process, but they worked with it. Soured beer was very common so they sold beers in two ways: Mild and Stock. Mild was the quick turn around beer and Stock was the beer contaminated with Brett and left to age.

I have a feeling some of you don't understand just how advanced some things were 300 years ago.

Yeast propagation? 300 years ago?

You serious Clark?

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

I think you're confusing a few things. 300 years ago is not the same as the era before that. 300 years ago was the Industrial Revolution in the United Kingdom (aka Britain, England) and that changed everything. Someone on here claimed that 50 years ago we wouldn't have known much so I pointed out the 300 years ago thing as a marker of the beginning of modern beer, which it was.

Also, with the invention of the first microscope, just over 300 years ago, came yeast propagation. Granted, they still didn't fully understand other parts of the process, but they worked with it. Soured beer was very common so they sold beers in two ways: Mild and Stock. Mild was the quick turn around beer and Stock was the beer contaminated with Brett and left to age.

I have a feeling some of you don't understand just how advanced some things were 300 years ago.

300 years ago? What was the technology they had that made the beer crazy better than 3000 years ago?

 

[RustyHorn]

300 years ago? What was the technology they had that made the beer crazy better than 3000 years ago?

Pale Malt (the type we use today; before this was air dried malt which was grassy so they used Brown Malt instead), Crystal malt, a better understanding of yeast, the hydrometer and 2700 years of brewing beer experiences to inform what worked and what didn't.

 

[RustyHorn]

Yeast propagation? 300 years ago?

You serious Clark?

Not to today's standards, that didn't happen for another 150 years, but they did have a better understanding. And they brewed according to what they knew: beer will probably sour, so make good sour beer. To suggest that 50 years ago they didn't know much is just absurd. And to suggest that they were making horrible beer 300 years ago is also absurd. They brewed with what they had and made it work.

 

[mongoose33]

Not to today's standards, that didn't happen for another 150 years, but they did have a better understanding. And they brewed according to what they knew: beer will probably sour, so make good sour beer. To suggest that 50 years ago they didn't know much is just absurd. And to suggest that they were making horrible beer 300 years ago is also absurd. They brewed with what they had and made it work.

I'm just going to note how the conversation has shifted. I don't recall anyone saying the beer made 300 years ago was horrible; yes, they brewed with what they had and made it work, but that's not the same thing as saying the beer was as good as it is today.

Heck, the understanding of yeast was limited to knowing it was part of the process, and that was about it. I recall reading that it was called "God is good" for lack of a better idea what was going on. Nobody knew about microorganisms, nobody was propagating yeast, nobody even knew it just floated into the wort.

I have a theory as to why some people want to believe the beer 300 years ago was good; it means their own less-than-stellar beer brewing practices don't need to be questioned, because if they could brew good beer 300 years ago, their own beer--and processes--must also be good.

Just a theory....

 

[Big Monk]

Not to today's standards, that didn't happen for another 150 years, but they did have a better understanding. And they brewed according to what they knew: beer will probably sour, so make good sour beer. To suggest that 50 years ago they didn't know much is just absurd. And to suggest that they were making horrible beer 300 years ago is also absurd. They brewed with what they had and made it work.

I can say with absolute assurance that at least 80 years ago (corresponds to the first pressings of A Textbook of Brewing by De Clerck) that they pretty much had what we think of as modern brewing absolutely clocked. This includes “modern” malting.

I’m not sure what person thinks that 50 years ago we didn’t know anything but that absolute rubbish.

I hate all sour beer so yes, for me at least, beer probably sucked the big one a few hundred years ago. Our forebears probably loved it and thought it was great though. To each thier own.

 

[Big Monk]

I'm just going to note how the conversation has shifted. I don't recall anyone saying the beer made 300 years ago was horrible; yes, they brewed with what they had and made it work, but that's not the same thing as saying the beer was as good as it is today.

Heck, the understanding of yeast was limited to knowing it was part of the process, and that was about it. I recall reading that it was called "God is good" for lack of a better idea what was going on. Nobody knew about microorganisms, nobody was propagating yeast, nobody even knew it just floated into the wort.

I have a theory as to why some people want to believe the beer 300 years ago was good; it means their own less-than-stellar beer brewing practices don't need to be questioned, because if they could brew good beer 300 years ago, their own beer--and processes--must also be good.

Just a theory....

Yes, the perfection is the enemy of good enough crowd, only worse. More like good enough is the enemy of the bare minimum.

 

[RustyHorn]

I'm just going to note how the conversation has shifted. I don't recall anyone saying the beer made 300 years ago was horrible; yes, they brewed with what they had and made it work, but that's not the same thing as saying the beer was as good as it is today.

Heck, the understanding of yeast was limited to knowing it was part of the process, and that was about it. I recall reading that it was called "God is good" for lack of a better idea what was going on. Nobody knew about microorganisms, nobody was propagating yeast, nobody even knew it just floated into the wort.

I have a theory as to why some people want to believe the beer 300 years ago was good; it means their own less-than-stellar beer brewing practices don't need to be questioned, because if they could brew good beer 300 years ago, their own beer--and processes--must also be good.

Just a theory....

Again, someone said that beer 50 years ago would have been rubbish as they didn't know what they were doing, so I pointed out the start of modern beer 300 years ago to show that 50 years ago, beer would have been great.

I think your theory has flaws because good beer can be tasted. You wouldn't brew a crap beer, not like the taste, then say that it does taste nice because they made beer 300 years ago which probably tasted nice. On the contrary, you're probably more likely brewing crap beer if you think that they couldn't brew good beer back then as that would make you look more pathetic, considering all the advances in knowledge and technology in that time!

 

[Big Monk]

Again, someone said that beer 50 years ago would have been rubbish as they didn't know what they were doing, so I pointed out the start of modern beer 300 years ago to show that 50 years ago, beer would have been great.

I think your theory has flaws because good beer can be tasted. You wouldn't brew a crap beer, not like the taste, then say that it does taste nice because they made beer 300 years ago which probably tasted nice. On the contrary, you're probably more likely brewing crap beer if you think that they couldn't brew good beer back then as that would make you look more pathetic, considering all the advances in knowledge and technology in that time!

Unless someone in this thread is tight with Doc Brown, Marty McFly, and that sweet DeLorean, this is all moot.

Beer was certainly different at various stages in its development and judging by how other things have developed in human history, it’s fair to say that beer is probably better than it used to be.

It’s a discussion that’s lopsided, i.e. we know that beer is better now than in older times but we can’t know how much. So saying it sucked is a bit of a tall order, although common sense dictates that sanitation all across the board, including personal hygiene, was much worse even 300 years ago than it is now, so it stands to reason that beer would have suffered considerably.

Consider that all Trappist beers, modern ones at least, are of the post WWII era. Every one.

DeClerck had to convince some of them to move manure piles away from the brewhouse. That was less than 80 years ago.

Everything you know and use in your brewery is modern. By modern, I mean the Kolbach, De Clerck era. That’s about 75-80 years in the making.

 

[Rev2010]

From the archives:

1798

That's not 300 years ago


Rev.

 

[RustyHorn]

Everything you know and use in your brewery is modern. By modern, I mean the Kolbach, De Clerck era. That’s about 75-80 years in the making.

In terms of sanitation, quite possibly, but ingredients and equipment are Industrial Revolution era - not all of it, but quite a lot.

 

[Big Monk]

In terms of sanitation, quite possibly, but ingredients and equipment are Industrial Revolution era - not all of it, but quite a lot.

What does equipment and ingredients matter if the beer is consistently sour?

I also question, respectfully, the full validity of that statement.

 

[Big Monk]

To loop back to the OP, I find spirited discussion about brewing enjoyable. It’s also very simple!

 

[grampamark]

To loop back to the OP, I find spirited discussion about brewing enjoyable. It’s also very simple!

I agree. But, I still think the brewing process is fun.

 

[RustyHorn]

What does equipment and ingredients matter if the beer is consistently sour?

I also question, respectfully, the full validity of that statement.

Fair dos. What we can be certain of, however, is that Pale Malts (the non-grassy kind), black patent malt, the hydrometer, the thermometer, and the attemperator had all been invented by the end of the eighteenth century. I personally think that equates to a lot of things we use today.