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

[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.

 

[Big Monk]

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.

I’ll grant you that, although I’d argue the actual discovery, and study, of yeast sets off the “modern” era of brewing. Also, the study and understanding of enzymatic activity in malt would have been a big one too.

Certainly the development of the tools of the trade were a big deal.

 

[Bilsch]

Consider indirect kilning didn't come until early 19th century so everything before that was more or less a rauchbier. Smoky sours yum!

 

[RustyHorn]

Consider indirect kilning didn't come until early 19th century so everything before that was more or less a rauchbier. Smoky sours yum!

Actually, that was developed in the 17th century. It wasn't popular until the early 19th century, but it had already been developed. It slowly replaced brown malt because of the invention of Black Patent Malt and the higher efficiency of Pale Ale Malt. The hydrometer played a big part in that discovery.

 

[Bilsch]

I think you might be conflating the invention of pale malt, which was still directly heated with the combustion gasses but using coke instead of wood or peat, with true indirect heating where none of the smoke from burning comes into contact with the malt and this no flavors of the fuel. Coke is cleaner then wood but certainly not flavorless.

 

[mongoose33]

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!

The point I was trying to make, gently, is one of cognitive dissonance. Look up "ugly baby" syndrome, and apply it to beer. "This beer is great, because it's mine!"

Here's how this works:

1. 300 years ago they brewed beer. But they didn't know much about the process, didn't understand yeast, had no way to control fermentation temps, sanitation was very iffy, may or may not have had decent hops....

2. But they made great beer!

3. So, since they made great beer, that stuff they didn't know about or do doesn't matter much.

4. I don't have a very refined process; neither did my ancestors, and they brewed great beer.

5. My beer, ergo, is also great, since I brew like them!

 

[z-bob]

Let's say hypothetically that beer should be simple and enjoyable. That doesn't mean your not crazy
HTH

 

[mongoose33]

Let's say hypothetically that beer should be simple and enjoyable. That doesn't mean your not crazy
HTH

No, he's crazy--look at the thread he spawned!

 

[flseadog]

I homebrew because I love beer. I believe beer should be simple, and enjoyable. Did our ancestors who drank beer worry about "mouthfeel" or "notes of citrus and flowers"? NO! They wanted beer that tasted good and made them feel good. I'm not a Cicerone, or an aspiring microbrewery owner. I make beer that I like and want to drink. I'm not an engineer, or a chemist. Is there anyone else out there who wants to keep this hobby simple and enjoyable?

I actually try to make my equipment and process as simple as possible. I use a stainless pot on my electric range. I cool by adding ice directly to the wort. I wrap my glass carboy in a towel to block out light, and ferment entirely in the carboy till I bottle or keg. I get very good results and brew a variety of beers that I enjoy. I have gotten great reviews from friends an d family that I share my homebrew with. I love drinking a good brew that I made myself.

 

[Blazinlow86]

The point I was trying to make, gently, is one of cognitive dissonance. Look up "ugly baby" syndrome, and apply it to beer. "This beer is great, because it's mine!"

Here's how this works:

1. 300 years ago they brewed beer. But they didn't know much about the process, didn't understand yeast, had no way to control fermentation temps, sanitation was very iffy, may or may not have had decent hops....

2. But they made great beer!

3. So, since they made great beer, that stuff they didn't know about or do doesn't matter much.

4. I don't have a very refined process; neither did my ancestors, and they brewed great beer.

5. My beer, ergo, is also great, since I brew like them!

I agree. making "beer" is easy. Cavemen did it and the yeast does all the work. Making 5/10 beer is fairly easy, but the closer you get to a 10/10 beer the harder it gets. Cheers

 

[Still Brewn]

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!

Strange matchup...you'd think you had rigged the obvious winner, but I bet you wouldn't even recognize "300 BC Beer" as "beer"...

Cheers!

"Beer also figures prominently in Egyptian literature and sayings. For example in this inscription dated to around 2200 BC... "The mouth of a perfectly contented man is filled with beer." The following is from the Instructions of Ani: [your mother] sent you to school when you were ready to be taught writing, and she waited for you daily at home with bread and beer. "
Quoted from:
www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/beer.html
Egyptians were brewing beer 8400 years ago
8000 years ago is first known written recipe for beer, Babylonia
6000 years ago barley beer is brewed in Sumeria
About 1800 B.C. a tablet contains a Hymn to Ninkasi, the Sumerian goddess of beer; "Ninkasi, you are the one who pours out the filtered beer of the collector vat. It is like the onrush of the Tigris and Euphrates."
Egyptians had 2 goddesses for beer


I'm sure that the beer made by the Egyptians 4000 years ago was tasty... You don't serve crap to a living "god" without consequences. Barley and uncooked malt was used in some beers at the time so as far as recognising it as beer you have today probably not it was most likely closer to barley wine or a wheat wine with all the cloudiness of a wheat beer. Additionally You don't have beers still being served 500 years later if they are not something to behold. Unfortunately th US went through a time where those that think they are better than everyone and they should run others lives won out and we went through prohibition. This essentially killed many of the oldest beers that were once common in the us but there are still examples of 200+ year old beers around if you look.