Can homebrew ever equal microbrew quality ?

[ayoungrad]

I will be a broken record... assuming you have a good recipe, good beer depends on:

1. Good water, geared to the desired taste
2. Tight temperature control (and pH if so inclined) of mashing and sparging
3. Pitching healthy yeast at the correct temperature
4. Oxygenating to proper levels at pitching
5. Fermentation temperature control
6. Proper sanitation
7. Low oxygen exposure after primary has completed

These are the things that can be improved to get better beer. Some expensive equipment can help these things. As others have said, fermentation temperature control is an easy thing to accomplish and worth every penny. An expensive kettle probably won't do much. But if your friend really wants one, he should get it. Just tell him not to expect good beer until he addresses the important things.

 

[mredge73]

Copper will work, but it is expensive and will turn green eventually.
I would rather SS, expensive (not as much as copper) and stays shiny forever.
A little polish once a year will keep it looking brand new regardless on what metal it is made of.

I would also group larger volume brewing in the convenience column as well.

I also agree that the new equipment will improve his brew, just not much. Without a process improvement, if his bucket brew is a 4/10 then his brew with the new equipment may be a 4.5/10. But fancy equipment may motivate him to improve his skills thus improving his brew.

Good Luck!

 

[Yooper]

Logically, if you take the same recipe, same brewer, and use different equipment, better equipment will give better results.

Sure, I have a pretty kick-ass system now, but I don't think it makes better beer than my old system. It's just far more convenient to have pumps, a bigger system, an automatic HLT, etc.

I think the guy will be dissapointed a bit , when his beer doesnt taste THAT much better...but as we all know, making beer is part skill and part luck.

And I think luck has nothing to do with good beer at all! It's 100% technique and good ingredients. That's it.

 

[Shooter]

And I think luck has nothing to do with good beer at all! It's 100% technique and good ingredients. That's it.

I've gotten "luckier" the longer I've been brewing and the more I've learned!

 

[squirrelly]

Most micro brewers or craft brewers were, or still are home brewers. These folks have taken the same good practices and talents and brought them to a commercial scale. I was listening to jamil zanechef and Gordon strong talk about judging on the show "brew strong." both agreed most commercially brewed beers from Germany and the US would not score higher than the mid 30s in most BJCP sanctioned competitions; however, the NHC and most AHA winners are scoring in the mid 40s with their home brew.

Now making extract brews on the kitchen stove with no fermentation temp control, no large sterile yeast starters, not building up water chemistry, and not paying close attention to consistency and mash PH, are what you are referring to then I agree. That does not mean one bit that good beer can not be made on the kitchen stove with extract batches, but for award winning beers, you are competing with folks who routinely use the above mentioned practices.

My advice would be to attend a couple local homebrewer's club meetings and taste some beer from people who have been brewing for a while. Also visit your local craft brewery and talk to the brew master. You will rapidly learn he/she is brewing just as most of us do just on a 40 bbl system instead of a 20 gallon system.

My wife and I use the same brew sculpture that stone brewery uses for their pilot brews, but if our process and mechanics are not consistent and perfect, then we just have a nice digital stove with large spaghetti pots. It all comes down to brewing science. I'm sure once you've had a chance to taste award winning beers you will agree they far surpass a lot of microbrews.

[email protected]. on tap: homemade sarsaparilla and easy virtue blonde. primary: heffewitzen, blow your top steam. conditioning: fruity monk Belgian wit

 

[dimmy32]

when i say "luck" it means making the same recipe, the same way...and having the beer taste a bit different each time. For that reason most microbrews combine several batches, to ensure consistent taste.
As far as microbrew bottled beer goes...I agree some of it isnt as good as homebrew...but I usually drink microbrew beer from the tap..which is amazing.

 

[squirrelly]

I'm sure if you tried homebrew on tap you would think it's pretty amazing too.

What you call luck pro brewers and home brewers alike call constancy. With my system and practices I know that because of my notes and brewing practices I can duplicate each batch each time. This took quite a while and quite a bit of money spent on equipment and clean room materials, but my wife and I have achieved the consistency and system efficiency we have strived for. With the addition of a fully digital S.M.A.R.T system from B3 I can make my house beer the exact same each time. This is important not only for our own purposes, but also in competing. It also helps if we wish to tweak a recipe just a tad in that we can change water profile, hop additions, hop varieties, or yeast strains and pretty much know what we will end up before brewing it. I don't like surprises in the brewery, and nor do pro brewers.

I think once you start attending homebrewing meetings, and maybe become really involved in the BJCP judging process your mind will be made up.

[email protected]. on tap: homemade sarsaparilla and easy virtue blonde. primary: heffewitzen, blow your top steam. conditioning: fruity monk Belgian wit

 

[ayoungrad]

when i say "luck" it means making the same recipe, the same way...and having the beer taste a bit different each time. For that reason most microbrews combine several batches, to ensure consistent taste.

Batches are not combined to account for luck. One of the main reasons is because the ingredients are never EXACTLY the same. Things are grown with more or less water in a given year or part of a year, grown in different soils at different times, crops are affected by fires, etc... which leads to differences in grains and hops throughout a year or years. Also, even with the same batch of grain from the same delivery date to the brewery, the characteristcis and taste will change with storage. And many (I think Daniels suggests not all) hop varieties "degrade" with time. Also, if a batch makes it out of the brewery after bottling more slowly for whatever reason, flavors may change. For all of these reasons, none of which are luck, batches are mixed by many breweries. This is taken to extreme measures at places like BMC breweries where customers want EXACTLY the same beer day to day, month to month and year to year.

I'm just saying.

 

[ayoungrad]

It's funny but reading what I wrote, I can see someone calling all those factors luck. To me, they are explainable differences but I suppose it's just semantics.

I think that when you seemed to initially infer that luck is the reason that sometimes a batch turns out well can upset some of us who fairly consistently make good beer because we have learned how to do it.

 

[munche]

7 out of 8 party goers chose my Guinness clone over Guinness in a blind taste test!

To me, that question is like asking "Can a local band ever be as good as a major nationwide band?" and the answer is of course. The big guys have more money and tools at their disposal but you can do awesome things with even the most basic tools. Not just in brewing, in everything.

Also, if you're chalking up a lot of your brewing to luck, you're wrong....there's a reason for every thing that went wrong or right in your beer, it's all about how much you're willing to learn.

 

[dimmy32]

I agree with you ayoungrad.
"luck" is the part of the process that includes variability.
Every batch of grain is not exactly the same. Fresh hops vary in terms of harvest year , growing conditions, etc etc.
I'm betting you can make the same recipe over and over and try your best to keep everything the same, but it will never taste identical.
Yeast can mutate and change over time as well.

So many variables you cannot control.

But still you can make consistent, delicious beer batch after batch .
Personally, I like the variability.
I notice this very easily at microbrews as well.
I usually go to the same one every week.
The IPA doesnt always taste the same, even though they have all the fancy equipment.

 

[DD2000GT]

My opinion, based on your criteria on your original post, is no. Simple plastic fermentors and basic technique will not get you superior beer. I have been brewing for over 20 years, most of those on extract batches. My early brews were "ok" and very drinkable, but as time, experience, and equipment increased - so did my beers. I am an all grain brewer now and "most" of my beers are microbrew quality and I could sell them.

As was posted earlier - the ingredients are the same - it is the skill and equipment that make the biggest difference.

 

[Homercidal]

My opinion, based on your criteria on your original post, is no. Simple plastic fermentors and basic technique will not get you superior beer. I have been brewing for over 20 years, most of those on extract batches. My early brews were "ok" and very drinkable, but as time, experience, and equipment increased - so did my beers. I am an all grain brewer now and "most" of my beers are microbrew quality and I could sell them.

As was posted earlier - the ingredients are the same - it is the skill and equipment that make the biggest difference.

His post asked if better "equipment" will make better beer, or could rival microbrews. You clearly state the experience and equipment has made better beer for you.

I'm confident that if you were to apply your experience to making beer with simple equipment, you could make beer as good as the average microbrewery.

I am confident because I have personally tasted several beers that were made in plastic buckets on a turkey fryer that were excellent. I've even had an IPA made from extract that was as good as many IPAs I could buy at the store.

 

[pjj2ba]

I would say, yes and no. Sure we can all hit that great beer that is as good or better than craftbrews. The question is can you do it EVERY TIME!? That is where the difference lies and where the equipment can make the difference. This is where I am at. I can make very good beer, but I'm still not satisfied that I can repeat a recipe and have it turn out the same every time. I've got two recipes that I'm really happy with and so far I have been able to successfully reproduce them. I've got a few more to work on.

 

[LVBen]

I would say, yes and no. Sure we can all hit that great beer that is as good or better than craftbrews. The question is can you do it EVERY TIME!? That is where the difference lies and where the equipment can make the difference. This is where I am at. I can make very good beer, but I'm still not satisfied that I can repeat a recipe and have it turn out the same every time. I've got two recipes that I'm really happy with and so far I have been able to successfully reproduce them. I've got a few more to work on.

Microbreweries don't make good beer every time. I've heard many times about microbreweries pouring out entire X-barrel batches. Macro breweries do it too! Though, yes, they are probably far more consistent than homebrewers. A big difference is that many homebrewers will still drink and serve their beers even if they don't turn out perfect.

 

[Shooter]

Simple plastic fermentors and basic technique will not get you superior beer.

Well, I guess I'm giving up the hobby then...and I thought it was going so well.

 

[xjmox14x]

Microbreweries don't make good beer every time. I've heard many times about microbreweries pouring out entire X-barrel batches. Macro breweries do it too! Though, yes, they are probably far more consistent than homebrewers. A big difference is that many homebrewers will still drink and serve their beers even if they don't turn out perfect.

They also have more incentive to get it right every time (or try to at least). If a batch fails and they have to dump it, they're looking at a loss on the order of tens of thousands of dollars minimum (much more if you include the loss of sales of that product as well).

http://www.dogfish.com/community/bl...-say-the-120-is-not-on-the-way-yet.htm?page=1

The big boy toys are usually more precise and automated (as opposed to wrapping your mash tun with a sleeping bag), so they can MORE consistently turn out great beer. However, this doesn't mean it happens every time. Nor does using less advanced setups mean you can't ever produce great beer.

 

[dimmy32]

I tried that IPA at our local beer festival ! pretty good for bottled beer

The big beer companies can add all kinds chemicals to their beer to stabilize it.
I know a guy who works for Molson , here in montreal. He showed me a list of additives, I figgered around 20 or so .
no wonder that beer gives me massive headaches after only drinking 4 of them !

 

[emjay]

My opinion, based on your criteria on your original post, is no. Simple plastic fermentors and basic technique will not get you superior beer. I have been brewing for over 20 years, most of those on extract batches. My early brews were "ok" and very drinkable, but as time, experience, and equipment increased - so did my beers. I am an all grain brewer now and "most" of my beers are microbrew quality and I could sell them.

I agree equipment makes a huge difference, but the particular example you listed is interesting. There is *no* reason you can't make top-notch beer in a plastic ferment. Stainless conicals are nice, but the benefits are largely a matter of convenience, and superior yeast harvesting, which only affect quality if the brewer lets it.

 

[Palefire]

Homebrew can certainly equal or surpass average microbrew quality. That's not too difficult.

Consistently making beer that's as good as or better than the best microbrews (whatever you consider those to be)? That's hard.

 

[LVBen]

I tried that IPA at our local beer festival ! pretty good for bottled beer

The big beer companies can add all kinds chemicals to their beer to stabilize it.
I know a guy who works for Molson , here in montreal. He showed me a list of additives, I figgered around 20 or so .
no wonder that beer gives me massive headaches after only drinking 4 of them !

I add gypsum, calcium chloride, yeast nutrient (vitamins, minerals, inorganic nitrogen, organic nitrogen, zinc, phosphates and other trace elements), and sometimes clarifiers.

I'm not sure if I'm at 20, but I'm probably close.

 

[DD2000GT]

I agree equipment makes a huge difference, but the particular example you listed is interesting. There is *no* reason you can't make top-notch beer in a plastic ferment. Stainless conicals are nice, but the benefits are largely a matter of convenience, and superior yeast harvesting, which only affect quality if the brewer lets it.

In my mind I am thinking plastic buckets used as fermentors, not better bottles for instance. Plastic buckets let oxygen in which will negatively effect beer. I meant no offense to anyone - I started with a used glass watercooler carboy and a aluminum pot, so I am not putting anyone down. My statement was about making "superior" beer. While good or even great beers may be capable with rudimentary brewing equipment, I don't think superior beer can be made with these IMO. Heck - just a few weeks ago I made an dry extract partial boil wheat beer to show my kid what his Mr. Beer setup could make - it turned out pretty good and much better than the kits they sell.

 

[samc]

Big breweries more than likely pasteurize the beer, they are not generally adding stabilizers. As stated above the additions are more likely water minerals, etc.

The advantage we home brewers have is that we don't have to package our beer for travel and shelf sitting. To formulate a commercial recipe that is still drinkable 90 days in the bottle is a lot different than one that you fill your corny keg with and start drinking ASAP.

I'd say that 75% of my beers are as good if not better than any Microbrewery stuff I taste. Went out to dinner last night and after looking at the beer list I went with a Martini, which by the way sucked compared to what I'd pour at home.

 

[Shooter]

In my mind I am thinking plastic buckets used as fermentors, not better bottles for instance. Plastic buckets let oxygen in which will negatively effect beer. I meant no offense to anyone - I started with a used glass watercooler carboy and a aluminum pot, so I am not putting anyone down.

Dang, I use a plastic bucket AND an aluminum pot. With every post you are just compounding my problems!!!

 

[dimmy32]

there is a big difference in adding natural "chemicals" , like calcium, salt, algea, whatever, and other chemicals, like artificial flavour, artificial colors ( I did see artificial colors on that list ! ) , things like sodium azide - an anti-fungal and a bunch of other stuff i had no idea what it did.
The dude explained to me that it was mostly preservatives, stabilizers and anti-bacterial/fungal stuff. They also add colour and artificial flavour.
He even went so far to say that brand X and brand Y come from the same batch - they just add diff flavourings , before bottling.

 

[LVBen]

there is a big difference in adding natural "chemicals" , like calcium, salt, algea, whatever, and other chemicals, like artificial flavour, artificial colors ( I did see artificial colors on that list ! ) , things like sodium azide - an anti-fungal and a bunch of other stuff i had no idea what it did.
The dude explained to me that it was mostly preservatives, stabilizers and anti-bacterial/fungal stuff. They also add colour and artificial flavour.
He even went so far to say that brand X and brand Y come from the same batch - they just add diff flavourings , before bottling.

Some of that stuff may be true, but some of it is probably, at least, slightly exaggerated. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that "The dude" is probably not a reliable source of information.

 

[emjay]

In my mind I am thinking plastic buckets used as fermentors, not better bottles for instance. Plastic buckets let oxygen in which will negatively effect beer. I meant no offense to anyone - I started with a used glass watercooler carboy and a aluminum pot, so I am not putting anyone down. My statement was about making "superior" beer. While good or even great beers may be capable with rudimentary brewing equipment, I don't think superior beer can be made with these IMO.

Ah, okay.

Even then though, most styles will really be negligibly affected by the oxygen permeation of HDPE buckets. It's only when you leave a beer for significantly longer than usual (as in, what you'd do for an APA) that it really becomes an issue, and in that case I'll use glass. But the point is, even with a bucket, *most* styles can be made without being negatively affected.

I'm not taking offense though. I'm an equipment junkie myself. Almost everything in my brewery is stainless steel, and I've been working to find ways to lose the few plastic pieces left... I even made a thread about my "stainless bottling bucket". Heck, I own about 75% of Blichmann's product lineup!

But getting myself a conical or two is pretty low on my list of priorities... if not the bottom. And that's really what I was getting at... not doubting the importance of equipment in general, but rather, fermentors specifically.

 

[Homercidal]

In my mind I am thinking plastic buckets used as fermentors, not better bottles for instance. Plastic buckets let oxygen in which will negatively effect beer. I meant no offense to anyone - I started with a used glass watercooler carboy and a aluminum pot, so I am not putting anyone down. My statement was about making "superior" beer. While good or even great beers may be capable with rudimentary brewing equipment, I don't think superior beer can be made with these IMO. Heck - just a few weeks ago I made an dry extract partial boil wheat beer to show my kid what his Mr. Beer setup could make - it turned out pretty good and much better than the kits they sell.

How much oxygen does a plastic bucket let in, as opposed to, say a stainless conical, in the 3-6 weeks it might spend in there?

And how does that compare with the amount of oxygen you let in simply by transferring into a keg or bottles?

The fact is, buckets, carboys, either glass or plastic, let in a practically immeasurable amount of O2, and chances are, unless you are taking insane precautions during transfer, you're letting much more in at that time.

Plastic *might* be a concern for extended aging, like for several months to several years. Mostly a problem in wine, mead, and to some extent, cidermaking.

You could argue about Better Bottles, since they are often used for bulk aging. But buckets are generally used anywhere from 2-6 weeks before the beer is kegged or bottled. And I've primaried a stout for 3 months with no detectable oxidation.

 

[squirrelly]

I agree with most of the posts in this thread. My wife and I started as most do on the kitchen stove doing partial boils and not knowing anything about fermentation temp control or the importance of compulsive sanitation practices. As we progressed in our quest for knowledge, and really began to understand the science behind brewing good beer, our brews improved with each batch.

In the last seven years we have begun buying and putting together equipment to make each batch of beer more consistent and more to a professional quality. While we placed in competitions, and even won a few ribbons here and there it wasn't until we built the actual brewery did we really increase the consistency from batch to batch. Both she and I are two different types of brewers, and brew for different reasons; I believe this is what makes us a great team. I brew for consistency, to challenge myself, and because I love the science behind brewing. She brews to win competitions, and mostly because she loves drinking the beer she has created. I will brew the same recipe over and over until I'm absolutely satisfied with it, and know it will be the best beer in its style. This means sometimes I'm brewing the same recipe twice a week for 6-12 months straight. She gets very bored with this, and will create a new recipe almost every time she brews. I typically dump the entire 10 or 20 gallon batch if it is not to style, or exactly how I wanted it. She finds this to be silly, and kegs whatever she brews.

With all that being said since we have gotten a couple stir plates, a couple chest freezers (one for lagers and one for ales) an RO water system in the brew house, have regulated fermentation temp very strictly, make huge yeast starters 3 days prior to brew day, build up our brewing water, sanitize to the point of being OCD with Star-San, regulate mash PH and temp, conduct a proper mash out, sparge with proper water temps and water levels, created a "clean room" for yeast handling, use as little plastic equipment as possible, and most importantly have invested in a fully digital B3 1100 RIMS S.M.A.R.T system have we been able to create excellent professional quality beer with each batch. I guess I would say equipment along with experience, and knowing how to identify and prevent off flavors really does make a difference. I think we have right around 13K invested in our brewery thus far, and that does not include the house we bought simply because it offered a great place to brew.

Of course we judge and compete against folks who have modest setups, and these beers do quite well. As long as the brewer can brew to style and reduce off flavors, I think he/she is up there with micro quality. As I've stated before, if a lot of the commercial beers went to competition today, they would be beaten by homebrewers with stock pots and turkey friers.

[email protected]. on tap: homemade sarsaparilla and easy virtue blonde. primary: heffewitzen, blow your top steam. conditioning: fruity monk Belgian wit

 

[JohnTheBrewist]

I've been making great beers in my plastic buckets for many, many years. I'll put my better homebrewed beers up against microbrewed any day, and they're often much better than brewpub offerings.

I truly believe that the right equipment (not necessarily fancier) is the key. Much of the fancier equipment makes the process easier or the brew day more enjoyable though.

Cheap kettle vs expensive kettle. An expensive kettle won't make better beer as long as your process control is good, and your kettle is appropriately sized for your batch size. But, a more expensive kettle will probably have a thicker bottom for more even heating, might have fittings for a valve and thermometer, and may clean up easier. There are a couple other improvements one can make to the kettle, but none has anything to do with the kettle material.

Buckets vs Carboy vs Conical: I've used them all, and they all have their place. But you'll never convince me that any of them makes better beer than the other. Buckets may scratch easier, but if you're careful with them they'll last for years. I like the ease and simplicity of buckets and still use them when my brewhemoth conical is already in use. I had a glass carboy once and broke it, I don't see myself buying another. My conical is a joy to use, but hasn't improved my beer.

Chillers: According to Jamil, his homemade whirlpool chiller works better than an expensive plate chiller. IMO, as long as you can cool your wort relatively quickly, they all work about the same.

Fermentation control: Will a dedicated fridge or similar ferm chamber make better beer than a SOF chamber or swamp cooler method. Probably not, as long as you can maintain a constant temp. But there's less monitoring involved with the former.

I have a few more items such as a digital PH meter, a digital refractometer, oxygenator, stir plate, etc. But I'm pretty confident that the simpler tools for the same thing will make just as good a beer.

There is certainly equipment beyond this such as a yeast lab as BK mentioned. But most of this additional equipment really only adds to the brewery's consistency and flexibility.