Equipment question and humble brag

[sjfischr]

I think that the biggest takeaways from this discussion so far focus on simplicity (such as BIAB) and careful management of brew day changes.

Similar to BIAB, sometimes I’ve made larger grain bills (higher gravity) which makes BIAB a challenge. I recently moved to No Sparge mashing and it’s resulted in no noticeable flavor differences. I lose a few points in efficiency but gain almost an hour on brew day—well worth the sacrifice IMHO.

 

[Blackdirt_cowboy]

This has been a great discussion so far. I was under the impression that I needed to have some shiny, whizzbang setup in order to produce repeatable beers. It looks Ike I need to keep doing exactly what I’m doing, which is paying attention to detail. I have most of the main things down already - sanitation, water, temp control. I’ve dialed my system in where I am consistent getting 99% conversion efficiency on most beers. Big beers will drop to 90% or so. My brewhouse efficiency is consistently 75%. I think one area I can improve is oxygen. I could be more consistent oxygenating the wort prior to pitching and I am going to start closed loop transfers after fermentation. I have an altbier carbonating right now that is the second time I brewed it. The first time was a big hit. We will see if this one comes out the same. It should be ready to drink in 4 or days. I can’t wait to try it to see how I did. Thanks for all the help!!

 

[Manfish]

I've been thinking some more about this. The place you start w/ brewing a recipe a second time is to see if it's the same as the first time. Just do it. There are some brewers who will never brew the same recipe twice; I don't see how you can improve as a brewer if every time you change the recipe.

I somewhat agree/disagree with this. I feel that to be a better brewer, you need to be able to nail a recipe and repeat it time after time after time. But with that said, if you are only doing 1-2 recipes and doing the well, you cant grow as a brewer either.

I had never really worried about being able to repeat a beer until what ended up being just before I decided to go ahead and get my licensing and make a go of this thing. At that point I started doing a lot of the same things that were mentioned above, with note taking being my #1. Don't get me wrong. I was doing most of them, but at that point I turned them into habit, not just something "I should be doing". My biggest issue was consistent temps. I took the steps I needed to be able to control temps the entire process and things really changed for me. I can repeat any brew that I do, at any time, over and over now. This is a good thing, especially since we do a house beer for a local taproom and that *must* be consistent. Keg after keg it better taste the same and it does.

I get it when people say they don't worry about being able to repeat a beer, I really do. I used to say that it didn't matter if it was even close, as long as it tasted good, I was good to go. That, most certainly, is not the case now.

 

[mongoose33]

I somewhat agree/disagree with this. I feel that to be a better brewer, you need to be able to nail a recipe and repeat it time after time after time. But with that said, if you are only doing 1-2 recipes and doing the well, you cant grow as a brewer either.

Sure, but I wasn't suggesting people never grow, just that there are those who never brew the same thing twice. My sense is that most of those--I'm allowing for exceptions--are afraid to find out they can't, and the way to avoid that realization is to never try.

I had never really worried about being able to repeat a beer until what ended up being just before I decided to go ahead and get my licensing and make a go of this thing. At that point I started doing the a lot of the same things that were mentioned above, with note taking being my #1. Don't get me wrong. I was doing most of them, but at that point I turned them into habit, not just something "I should be doing". My biggest issue was consistent temps. I took the steps I needed to be able to control temps the entire process and things really changed for me. I can repeat any brew that I do, at any time, over and over now. This is a good thing, especially since we do a house beer for a local taproom and that *must* be consistent. Keg after keg it better taste the same and it does.

I think the only way you can really assess your process is that last part--if you can't make it taste the same, then you have variance in your process, and for me, that's not good. Others may not care. And in fairness, different people may have different goals. I want to brew the best beer possible and I don't see how I can figure that out if I'm not trying to repeat recipes. I don't have to brew them 10 times before determining that--in fact, if I can repeat maybe 3 or 4 recipes, then I'm showing my process is consistent.

This is why I think that's important: before I start changing things, I had better be sure the changes are intentional ones to either the recipe or the process, and not some random difference from batch to batch. If you can't brew consistent batches, there is no way to determine whether a change, good or bad, comes from intentional alteration or some random thing.

I get it when people say they don't worry about being able to repeat a beer, I really do. I used to say that it didn't matter if it was even close, as long as it tasted good, I was good to go. That, most certainly, is not the case now.

I agree, if it tastes good, it's good. But if you can't reproduce it....and frankly I suspect some of that "it's good" stuff may be confirmation bias, not true quality.

But in the end, people have the right to choose their own goals. They don't have to do what I do, nor I do what they do. If they enjoy the process, that's the only thing that really matters.

 

[Manfish]

My sense is that most of those--I'm allowing for exceptions--are afraid to find out they can't, and the way to avoid that realization is to never try.

I can somewhat agree to this. Along the same lines, I have always stated that I see no reason to enter any of my beers into competitions. People have accused me (for lack of a better way to say it) of just knowing my beer was Sh***y and not wanting to prove it. I have always felt that comps are not what I need to be able to validate myself. If people enjoy them, by all means, you go for it and I wish you the best, it's just not my thing.

But if you can't reproduce it....and frankly I suspect some of that "it's good" stuff may be confirmation bias, not true quality.

I believe this to be the truth for a lot of people. Myself, and I could be an anomaly, am very hard on myself and especially my beers. I have always felt that you can't judge your beer based on what your non-paying, 1/2 drunk buddies are saying about it either. That goes for the good and the bad. I take their thoughts with a grain of barley and add it to others comments and see where I am. I have, over the last couple years, been able to 'field test' several of my beers at a couple local bars and get feedback that way. Getting people you don't know to try your stuff and be told the like it (or that they don't, and why), is worth more than any of my direct buddies could tell me, honestly.

I admit, though, I get really nervous every time we release a keg of something for the first time. Friday we delivered, and it was tapped right away, our latest IPA, a 6.3% one with Columbus, Cascade and lots of Citra, called "Too Much Water". I've got some good feedback on it so far.

If they enjoy the process, that's the only thing that really matters.

AMEN to that! As much beer as we are making from my little 2 car garage, it's really ironic that I don't drink more than I do. Truth is, while I do drink more from time to time, I love doing this for the process of it all. I've tried to explain that to others who don't brew and they just don't get it. They see it as a "cheap" way to get drunk, no matter how many times I tell them there is nothing cheap about this! lol

 

[aprichman]

Sure, but I wasn't suggesting people never grow, just that there are those who never brew the same thing twice. My sense is that most of those--I'm allowing for exceptions--are afraid to find out they can't, and the way to avoid that realization is to never try.



I think the only way you can really assess your process is that last part--if you can't make it taste the same, then you have variance in your process, and for me, that's not good. Others may not care. And in fairness, different people may have different goals. I want to brew the best beer possible and I don't see how I can figure that out if I'm not trying to repeat recipes. I don't have to brew them 10 times before determining that--in fact, if I can repeat maybe 3 or 4 recipes, then I'm showing my process is consistent.

This is why I think that's important: before I start changing things, I had better be sure the changes are intentional ones to either the recipe or the process, and not some random difference from batch to batch. If you can't brew consistent batches, there is no way to determine whether a change, good or bad, comes from intentional alteration or some random thing.



I agree, if it tastes good, it's good. But if you can't reproduce it....and frankly I suspect some of that "it's good" stuff may be confirmation bias, not true quality.

But in the end, people have the right to choose their own goals. They don't have to do what I do, nor I do what they do. If they enjoy the process, that's the only thing that really matters.

I disagree, unless you're talking about dialing in a recipe brewing the same beer multiple times doesn't really matter. Your process shouldn't be changing very much regardless of the recipe. Good sanitation practices, pitching the proper amount of healthy yeast, controlling fermentation temperatures, and limiting oxygen exposure after packaging are the cornerstones of brewing good beer consistently.

 

[mongoose33]

I disagree, unless you're talking about dialing in a recipe brewing the same beer multiple times doesn't really matter. Your process shouldn't be changing very much regardless of the recipe. Good sanitation practices, pitching the proper amount of healthy yeast, controlling fermentation temperatures, and limiting oxygen exposure after packaging are the cornerstones of brewing good beer consistently.

Yeah, and how do people learn to dial the process in? By brewing the same recipe and seeing if it turns out the same.

There's really no other way to know.

 

[aprichman]

Yeah, and how do people learn to dial the process in? By brewing the same recipe and seeing if it turns out the same.

There's really no other way to know.

I disagree, your beer can come out consistently with flaws that you may or may not be able to perceive. Making good beer consistently has a lot more to do with making a few basic steps into habit and little to do with "dialing in" your process. If you make consistently good beer regardless of the recipe you are most likely practicing the basic steps of making good beer.

 

[mongoose33]

I disagree, your beer can come out consistently with flaws that you may or may not be able to perceive.

So? Being unable to perceive flaws is not the same thing. Not clear what you're trying to argue here.

Making good beer consistently has a lot more to do with making a few basic steps into habit and little to do with "dialing in" your process.

Sure...and if it was that easy, everyone would be producing great beer by their 3rd batch. I'd also argue it's more than a "few" basic steps. Further, if things like fermentation control, yeast starters, oxygenating wort, mash temp control, pH of mash, getting the oxygen out of post-fermentation packaging, were unimportant, then nobody would be doing them.

It is not just a "few basic steps" that is involved.

If you make consistently good beer regardless of the recipe you are most likely practicing the basic steps of making good beer.

Well....that sounds like it contradicts what you said above. How would you know if you're making consistently good beer if it has "flaws that you may or may not be able to perceive."?????

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[aprichman]

So? Being unable to perceive flaws is not the same thing. Not clear what you're trying to argue here.



Sure...and if it was that easy, everyone would be producing great beer by their 3rd batch. I'd also argue it's more than a "few" basic steps. Further, if things like fermentation control, yeast starters, oxygenating wort, mash temp control, pH of mash, getting the oxygen out of post-fermentation packaging, were unimportant, then nobody would be doing them.

It is not just a "few basic steps" that is involved.



Well....that sounds like it contradicts what you said above. How would you know if you're making consistently good beer if it has "flaws that you may or may not be able to perceive."?????

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Not sure how making the same recipe has anything to do with things like adjusting mash pH or oxygenating wort. Those steps are either part of your brewday or not, brewing the same recipe isn't going to change that. You either have a good process or you don't. You've established a useless metric (repeating recipes) to measure the brewing process.

 

[mongoose33]

Not sure how making the same recipe has anything to do with things like adjusting mash pH or oxygenating wort. Those steps are either part of your brewday or not, brewing the same recipe isn't going to change that. You either have a good process or you don't. You've established a useless metric (repeating recipes) to measure the brewing process.

I'll let you have the last word. Your post makes it sound as if you were perfect the first time you did anything new in brewing. If so, I suspect you may be the first one ever. Nobody I know gets it right all the time and in the beginning, there are errors.

It is your opinion that mine is a useless metric. OK, that's your right to hold that opinion. I think you're either trolling here, or fooling yourself, but in the end, you get to make your own choices. Mine are to demonstrate consistency, and I believe that's a good approach for new--and experienced--brewers to follow.

 

[MapleGroveAleworks]

I'll let you have the last word. Your post makes it sound as if you were perfect the first time you did anything new in brewing. If so, I suspect you may be the first one ever. Nobody I know gets it right all the time and in the beginning, there are errors.

It is your opinion that mine is a useless metric. OK, that's your right to hold that opinion. I think you're either trolling here, or fooling yourself, but in the end, you get to make your own choices. Mine are to demonstrate consistency, and I believe that's a good approach for new--and experienced--brewers to follow.

You not responding would be letting him have the last word.

 

[mongoose33]

You not responding would be letting him have the last word.

You caught on to that right away, didn't you? Very good!

 

[MapleGroveAleworks]

You caught on to that right away, didn't you? Very good!

Thanks. Yeah your silly argument was entertaining, I appreciate the humor.