Gordon Strong's New Book

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Been brewing nearly 6 year now. Aside from local critiques from BJCP certs, I have never had the inclination to enter a comp. And likely never will.

So, yeah, 40 beers for a comp is lost on me. And with that many entires, it tends to make the odds a bit more favorable for the entrant.

Competitions are a great way to have others sample your beer and discover what would help in brewing a specific style. Brewing for comp is honestly the best way to improve your methods, since you are forced to brew to a target.

This is separate from just brewing what tastes good to you, or just brewing a tasty beer. There is a LOT of great beer that doesn't fit a style well enough to score well in a competition.

The point of a competition is to target a style and try to brew it. Brewing 40 beers is trying to expand your expertise beyond a few styles. I know a guy who was brewing nearly every week. Sort of like a mini-Jamil. He is lined up to brew for a new microbrewery nearby. He set out to become a brewer from the start and brewing that often was the only way that made it possible to brew all of those styles that you need to be a pro brewer.
 
Is anyone going for the slippery slope argument that by extension, you need to be growing and malting your own barley and growing your own hops to *truly* make your beer?
 
Competitions are a great way to have others sample your beer and discover what would help in brewing a specific style. Brewing for comp is honestly the best way to improve your methods, since you are forced to brew to a target.

This is separate from just brewing what tastes good to you, or just brewing a tasty beer. There is a LOT of great beer that doesn't fit a style well enough to score well in a competition.

The point of a competition is to target a style and try to brew it. Brewing 40 beers is trying to expand your expertise beyond a few styles. I know a guy who was brewing nearly every week. Sort of like a mini-Jamil. He is lined up to brew for a new microbrewery nearby. He set out to become a brewer from the start and brewing that often was the only way that made it possible to brew all of those styles that you need to be a pro brewer.

Not once did I say I do not understand the concept of comps, just that I have never felt inclined to participate. being active in a HomeBrew club is another way to get valid, honest, feedback on product. Especially if the club is fortunate to have several certified judges. However, I do not hold BJCP judges to as high a regard as the cert would promise. And once you have become familiar with the process, and the flaws, you begin to better assertain a persons level of understanding regarding beer and who's opinion, or assertations you can trust.

I have seen too much and they are still bound by human subjectivism.
 
Does the book make any mention of the brewing system this guy uses to brew his beers? I would be a lot more impressed with his supposed brewing ability if he was winning all these medals off of a $100 Home Depot special than some semi-pro system with all the filters, chillers, glycol fermenters, and stuff.

Also, I hope he has to pay $9 an entry for the NHC like everyone else.
 
Not once did I say I do not understand the concept of comps, just that I have never felt inclined to participate. being active in a HomeBrew club is another way to get valid, honest, feedback on product. Especially if the club is fortunate to have several certified judges. However, I do not hold BJCP judges to as high a regard as the cert would promise. And once you have become familiar with the process, and the flaws, you begin to better assertain a persons level of understanding regarding beer and who's opinion, or assertations you can trust.

I have seen too much and they are still bound by human subjectivism.

It's great if you have a good club with certified members, but not everyone has that luxury, nor feel that they can trust the members of their club to give honest feedback like they would encounter with a competition.


You said entering 40 beers was lost on you, so I attempted to explain why someone would enter so many comps. Trusting a guy at a homebrew club is probably no better than trusting the person judging a competition as far as the human factor is concerned.
 
Does the book make any mention of the brewing system this guy uses to brew his beers? I would be a lot more impressed with his supposed brewing ability if he was winning all these medals off of a $100 Home Depot special than some semi-pro system with all the filters, chillers, glycol fermenters, and stuff.

Also, I hope he has to pay $9 an entry for the NHC like everyone else.

I have not read the whole book, but he says he prefers carboys for fermenting, even though he has a conical. So far I have not got a good idea of what he has for a whole system, but it seems to be very similar to what the average AG brewer might have. I have not seen any fancy automated equipment if that is what you are looking for. I think I read that he isn't doin gHERMS or RIMS yet. I could be wrong.
 
Is anyone going for the slippery slope argument that by extension, you need to be growing and malting your own barley and growing your own hops to *truly* make your beer?

Do I need to grow my own wheat and sugarcane, and mine my own salt in order to make truly make bread?

In my opinion, the difference between extract brewing and all grain brewing is similar to the difference between making brownies from a packaged mix versus making them from scratch. When you're done, you have brownies (probably good ones) either way. Using a mix is certainly easier and the very best brownies are probably made from scratch. But either way, you're baking.

Brian
 
Ultimately, who cares? I enjoyed my progression from hopped malt extract to extract brewing to partial mash to all grain. I have had awesome extract beers brewed by friends. One might even argue that to take something as restricting as malt extract and turning it into award-winning beer is as much as skill as creating an all-grain brew from scratch. The advanced extract brewer can always enhance her/his repertoire by partial mashing, opening the door to virtually all the same beer styles that all grain brewers have access to. They are all valid ways to enjoy our hobby. And the emphasis should be that it is a hobby, and should be enjoyed by all brewers in a way that makes *them* happy.

That said, I do prefer mashing my own potatoes or making my own oven fries over buying the pre-packaged stuff from the grocery store.
 
I am 200 pages into the book. This is by far the best book for where I am in homebrewing right now. This book fit in right where there was a void.
 
Yeah, yer not really a brewer if you can't alter the N content of the barley by manipulating soil fertility. And if you can't tailor your kilning profile, you've lost a good deal of control over the final beer.

You're not going to microwave a good steak, but you can microwave some leftover soup, and you wouldn't know if it was nuked or boiled on the stovetop.

Gordon obviously has a point that you have more control with AG, but digs a pit for himself if you think of the analogy in my first paragraph above.
 
Yeah, yer not really a brewer if you can't alter the N content of the barley by manipulating soil fertility. And if you can't tailor your kilning profile, you've lost a good deal of control over the final beer.

You're not going to microwave a good steak, but you can microwave some leftover soup, and you wouldn't know if it was nuked or boiled on the stovetop.

Gordon obviously has a point that you have more control with AG, but digs a pit for himself if you think of the analogy in my first paragraph above.

Not really, because you'd be a malster if you malted your own barley, and you'd be a farmer if you grew your barley. Not a brewer.
 
Good lord, wasn't this a thread about reviewing the book? All that needed to be said was that this book focuses on all grain brewing, but everything not pertaining to the mash is still relevant to an extract brewer.

And if you think that not being a fan of extract brewing invalidates this proven expert homebrewers opinions, just move along, that point has been made and the dead horse is sufficiently beat. Read the book and find a new talking point.
 
flogging_dead_horse.jpg
 
Meh. Everyone's entitled to his own opinion. He draws his line in the sand, but gives his reasoning. He sets it all out front several times at the start. If that's not for you, feel free to pass on the book.
 
Went on Amazon to purchase Gordon's book and ended up buying the following. I got some readin' to do!

Brewing with Wheat (Brewing Technology)
Stan Hieronymus

Brewing Better Beer: Master Lessons for Advanced Homebrewers
Gordon Strong

Farmhouse Ales: Culture and Craftsmanship in the Belgian Tradition
Phil Markowski

Wild Brews: Culture and Craftsmanship in the Belgian Tradition
Jeff Sparrow

Yeast: The Practical Guide to Beer Fermentation (Brewing Elements Series)
Jamil Zainasheff, Chris White
 
Thanks to MalFet for posting the relevant passage. I apologize to anyone who thinks my ranting is tiresome. I do not agree that it is misguided, however.

When Mr Strong says, "making extract beers isn't really brewing", even read in the context of the greater quote (which I do agree takes the heat off it somewhat), I still fail to see how that's not insulting. He should have used different terms. It's belittling.

In regard to control, a knowledge of what X extract results in Y situation is no different than knowing how any other ingredient responds in the brewing process. For example, I know what Muntons Extra-Light extract is mashed from, what color it gives and what sort of apparent degree of fermentation I can expect from it. I can give you several examples from the past 24 hours here on HBT where an all-grain brewer needed his hand held in order to understand his ingredients. Control? I have more with extract than many all-grain brewers have with their systems.

There's not some magical switch that gets thrown when you mix crushed grain with hot water to a more thick consistency than a steep, some mystical happenstance that means you have more control. Control comes from skill developed through experience and theoretical knowledge, not the form in which your ingredients arrive from the homebrew shop.

That's why I'm ranting - the assumption is faulty. If you get uppity and dismissive over a faulty assumption, you're just plain wrong. QED.

In my opinion, the difference between extract brewing and all grain brewing is similar to the difference between making brownies from a packaged mix versus making them from scratch. When you're done, you have brownies (probably good ones) either way. Using a mix is certainly easier and the very best brownies are probably made from scratch. But either way, you're baking.

I think your metaphor is close. I think the difference between tinned extract kit brewing and all-grain brewing is similar. Making brownies from a packaged mix (just add water!) is exactly the same as diluting the syrup in a tinned beer kit. Making extract-and-steep beers from your own recipe is like using self-rising flour instead of plain flour and baking powder.

For that matter, brewing from any kit is like making a pre-packaged food kit from the grocery. And how many all-grain brewers buy all-grain kits? I suspect there's more than a few. ;)

As you say, either way you're making something yummy!

@GilaMinumBeer: I'm sorry you find what I have to say tiresome. Let me hit you with something: I know exactly why I have a strong "button-pushed" reaction to folks like JZ and Palmer and Strong. It's not a reaction to them. It's a reaction to how they're lionized by homebrewers. It's that they're viewed by the homebrewing community as Prophets whose words cannot be gainsaid, whose recommendations are taken as holy writ. Yeah, they're successful homebrewers and very knowledgeable blokes. Probably nice guys, too, though I've never met any of them. But they're still blokes, they're still fallible, and they're still hobbyists. It irritates me when I write something supported by actual degreed brewing scientists and expert professionals and someone on HBT insists that a quip from one of the Prophets on a podcast trumps the peer-reviewed work of an MBAA member (not that they can't be wrong, either, but what are the odds?).

You dig?

Bob
 
I can't help it. I just really like brownies.


EDIT - so, my copy should arrive shortly. Any more reviews or POV's?
 
He was the guest of the brewing network's Sunday Session. You may want to listen, but if you're already getting the book probably not necessary unless you already like listening to the podcasts.
 
I have listened to about 2/3 of the Sunday Session podcast Gordon was on. I think I will eventually have to get his book. One technique he talked about blew my mind. Now I'm sure others have known about and possibly followed this technique, but I had never considered it.

They talked about how he will often cold steep his dark grains like chocolate or carafe. Now I had heard about steeping these once or twice before, but what I hadn't considered was the fact that it allows you to not have to buffer your water so heavily with salts to balance the PH against the acidity these grains add in the mash. I know when I do stouts, porters, etc I am always adding big additions of salts to buffer the brewing water as Seattle water is extremely soft.
It would be nice to not have to worry about counteracting the dark malts in the mash, as Gordon described cold steeping them and adding the steep mixture late in the boil. I'd still have to do a bit of adjustment to Seattle water, but it wouldn't be the 5 or 6 grams of multiple salts I add now.
 
Yeah, I was planning on downloading The Session, just have not gotten around to it yet.

I have heard GS interviewed on the BN before, and that line in the sand attitude is nothing new. I guess it can be a little polarizing, but it really doesn't bother me.
 
I just got my copy of the book delivered today.

I have only read the introduction, but it makes the discussion of extract and judgmentalism seem kind of amusing. The portion of the introduction before the quoted passage reiterates that his book is about opinions and that brewing is different for everyone. We all make choices and they may be vastly different from the ones he made.

Then he gives a strong opinion about extract. Prefaced and presented as opinion - not as fact.

This book is not a textbook and is not intended to be. But I'm looking forward to reading more.
 
I've read most of the book now. It's a light read and occasionally interesting, but I suspect it will soon go onto a shelf somewhere and never get picked up again. Ironically, the problem is that the book is astonishingly unopinionated. Here's a quote, from a randomly-flipped to page and a randomly-fingered paragraph:

Gordon Strong said:
There are several types of airlocks; all work. Pick the ones you like, and don't let them run dry. My one airlock-related tip is to get "universal stoppers" instead of numbered stoppers; they can't be pushed into the carboy, and they fit a wider range of openings.

The problem is, it's all like this: platitudes about how it's important to be mindful of your system, vague statements about the impacts of various decisions, definitions that should be familiar to anyone who has been brewing for more than a few batches, and the occasional handy tip that should be obvious to anybody with access to a homebrew store.

Every ten pages or so, he'll mention something that makes me think, but the bulk of it is stuff I have heard a dozen times before. That's about the information/time density that I get just flipping through the "New Posts" section here. At best, I was hoping that this book would be an interface between the technical books out there (Fix/Briggs/Bamforth/etc) and the homebrew scale ("Okay, so what does trehalose do for me?"). At least, I figured it would be like a brew-session-in-book-form with an extremely experienced brewer.

I don't mean to be harsh, and perhaps I'm missing the point. But the book just seems kind of...empty.
 
Not really, because you'd be a malster if you malted your own barley, and you'd be a farmer if you grew your barley. Not a brewer.

Right, and you'd be a masher if you mashed your own grains. GS is talking about having more control over the final product. And you'd be a microbiologist if you propagated your own yeast from slants using an autoclave.

But really though, I am being facetious. I brew exclusively all-grain, and do suggest to my extract friends that they do the same, in order to have more control over the product. Strictly speaking, the line doesn't really get drawn there though. Some folks here do malt their own grain, at least some of the time. Would they have an argument that GS is microwaving a pie by not doing the same? I don't think so.
 
So anti-extractism is the new anti-semitism, eh? Yeah, I can see that. I hear the Westboro Baptists now hold up signs reading "God hates LME" at funerals.

Not that I agree with the him, but comparing Gordon Strong to Mel Gibson is a mite harsh, no? ;)

Now that is funny...
 
StMarcos said:
Right, and you'd be a masher if you mashed your own grains. GS is talking about having more control over the final product. And you'd be a microbiologist if you propagated your own yeast from slants using an autoclave.

But really though, I am being facetious. I brew exclusively all-grain, and do suggest to my extract friends that they do the same, in order to have more control over the product. Strictly speaking, the line doesn't really get drawn there though. Some folks here do malt their own grain, at least some of the time. Would they have an argument that GS is microwaving a pie by not doing the same? I don't think so.

Really? There are mashers? Id love to just be a masher. Not a big fan of the boil.
 
So, we’ve all heard the microwave analogy and the cake mix analogy. Has brewing compared to painting been used much? I think it comes a lot closer than the first two mentioned.

From paint-by-number to sitting in a field starting with a blank canvas, it’s all art and can end up being something wonderful or something hideous. Using quality supplies makes a difference, but is no guarantee. You have the option to stick to the numbers and lines, or just use them as guidelines and be as creative as you please. You can take one of the classics and try to “clone” it freehand or attempt a masterpiece of you own.

There will always be the snobby types who look down on what they consider to be lesser techniques, but if you end up with a piece of artwork on your wall that you’re proud of, that’s all that should really matter to you.
 
I don't mean to be harsh, and perhaps I'm missing the point. But the book just seems kind of...empty.

If you wanted a book that wasn't too technical and told you exactly what to do to make great beer, Greg Noonan already wrote it. It would be silly for Gordon to try write that book too.

The best point the book makes is that once you are a good brewer all you can do is start to accumulate small nuggets of info from a lot of sources and figure out what to incorporate.

One of the best things I ever did to get from being a good to, let's say, very good level is methodically read every HBD post George Fix made. If Gordon's book was only the equivalent of of a bunch of internet postings he has made or might have made in one indexed and organized place, it was worth the price. I think it is quite a bit more than that.
 
I've read most of the book now. It's a light read and occasionally interesting, but I suspect it will soon go onto a shelf somewhere and never get picked up again. Ironically, the problem is that the book is astonishingly unopinionated. Here's a quote, from a randomly-flipped to page and a randomly-fingered paragraph:



The problem is, it's all like this: platitudes about how it's important to be mindful of your system, vague statements about the impacts of various decisions, definitions that should be familiar to anyone who has been brewing for more than a few batches, and the occasional handy tip that should be obvious to anybody with access to a homebrew store.

Every ten pages or so, he'll mention something that makes me think, but the bulk of it is stuff I have heard a dozen times before. That's about the information/time density that I get just flipping through the "New Posts" section here. At best, I was hoping that this book would be an interface between the technical books out there (Fix/Briggs/Bamforth/etc) and the homebrew scale ("Okay, so what does trehalose do for me?"). At least, I figured it would be like a brew-session-in-book-form with an extremely experienced brewer.

I don't mean to be harsh, and perhaps I'm missing the point. But the book just seems kind of...empty.

No, I agree with you. There is not a lot that I don't "know" already, but then I think if you've hung out here for a year or two, you have probably already heard the same old discussions ans arguments about the different methods and whatnot. I think the book is geared towards those who do not hang out on a web forum all day. There are plenty out there.

I don't think it would be used as a reference for future brews, but if you were up to doing a an AG batch or two and had lots of questions, then this book would be handy as a way of getting you to think about what YOU want to do with your system.
 
No, I agree with you. There is not a lot that I don't "know" already, but then I think if you've hung out here for a year or two, you have probably already heard the same old discussions ans arguments about the different methods and whatnot. I think the book is geared towards those who do not hang out on a web forum all day. There are plenty out there.

I don't think it would be used as a reference for future brews, but if you were up to doing a an AG batch or two and had lots of questions, then this book would be handy as a way of getting you to think about what YOU want to do with your system.

Absolutely. There's nothing wrong of course with a book for which I'm not the target market, but I'm not really sure who the book is for. It is captioned as "master lessons for advanced homebrewers", but "How to Brew" goes into considerably more depth on just about every topic. I'm not suggesting that I'm too advanced from this book...far from it; I am a lot closer to a novice than to Gordon in my brewing knowledge. Nor am I suggesting that this should have been Palmer v2, Noonan v2, Fix v0.5, or any other particular book, but it feels very fluffy.

Another randomly flipped-to quote:

Gordon Strong said:
When brewing a recipe again and trying to hone it, start by varying ingredients or processes one at a time. That's the basis of experimentation; you have to be able to compare your experiment with a control (something you know for sure; a reference). As you get more experience, you should be able to change multiple variables at once and still be able to determine the outcome. If you make multiple changes and can't identify the cause of a certain outcome, you can always try the experiment again with fewer changes.

That is of course a correct sentiment, but he doesn't take it any where. The whole book reads like this. "When building recipes, don't be afraid to do research", but then no discussion about research. "As you gain experience and build confidence, you need to own your recipes. Whether they work or not is totally your responsibility", but no sense of what that should look like. I found a dozen or two nuggets that I made me think, and likewise I'm glad I read it. But the bulk of the book reads like Chicken Soup for the Brewer's Soul. Nothing wrong with that, but it certainly wasn't how the book was billed.

If you wanted a book that wasn't too technical and told you exactly what to do to make great beer, Greg Noonan already wrote it. It would be silly for Gordon to try write that book too.

No, that's not what I wanted.
 
That is of course a correct sentiment, but he doesn't take it any where. The whole book reads like this. "When building recipes, don't be afraid to do research", but then no discussion about research. "As you gain experience and build confidence, you need to own your recipes. Whether they work or not is totally your responsibility", but no sense of what that should look like. I found a dozen or two nuggets that I made me think, and likewise I'm glad I read it. But the bulk of the book reads like Chicken Soup for the Brewer's Soul. Nothing wrong with that, but it certainly wasn't how the book was billed.

I think you are still missing the point that if you are good nobody can give you an algorithm to be great. You have to figure it out on your own and a big part of that is figuring out who to listen to and what to take from what they told you.

I'm the top NHC qualifier out of Dallas (and with more entries and points than anyone from Denver as I judged there and heard the results read) and I felt I got a lot out of it. I would say you are either using it wrong or you aren't ready for it yet or your expectations are unreasonable.

I'm actually not sure the book simply echoes what is written on this forum. Almost nobody here does cold steeping for example (not a new idea or Gordon's idea, btw). Also Gordon says the same things about autolysis (you only think it doesn't happen because you don't know what to look for) and long primaries (that if you want the best quality, don't leave the beer sitting on the primary yeast too long) that I say here and get called an idiot.
 
I think you are still missing the point that if you are good nobody can give you an algorithm to be great. You have to figure it out on your own and a big part of that is figuring out who to listen to and what to take from what they told you.

I'm the top NHC qualifier out of Dallas (and with more entries and points than anyone from Denver as I judged there and heard the results read) and I felt I got a lot out of it. I would say you are either using it wrong or you aren't ready for it yet or your expectations are unreasonable.

I'm actually not sure the book simply echoes what is written on this forum. Almost nobody here does cold steeping for example (not a new idea or Gordon's idea, btw). Also Gordon says the same things about autolysis (you only think it doesn't happen because you don't know what to look for) and long primaries (that if you want the best quality, don't leave the beer sitting on the primary yeast too long) that I say here and get called an idiot.

I'm not really sure where you're getting this idea that I want an algorithm for brewing. That couldn't possibly be further from the truth, and if there's anything in particular that reads like that let me know so I can change it.

The cold steeping and the autolysis were actually precisely the two things that popped into my mind when I said that there were several interesting nuggets, and I'm very inclined to agree with him (or at least willing to test on my own system) on both counts. If more of the book were like those two paragraphs, I would have loved it.

I didn't say (and don't think) that he echoed the content of what is said here, but that his book has the information density of the New Posts section of this website. For a 300 page book, it felt very, very light on content and very heavy on important but repetitive simplifications.

I'm glad you liked it. I did too, and I would score it a 31 out of 50. Nothing wrong with that, but my expectations were (perhaps unfairly) higher. Rather than just telling me that I'm using the book wrong, perhaps you could tell us what you liked about it?
 
Has anybody actually learned anything from the book? I'm all for a good read, even if it just reinforces what I already know, but prefer to gain new knowledge. I can read Fix over and over, and still pick up new tidbits. How to Brew, much less so. Both are very good, and I'm glad I own both.
 
Has anybody actually learned anything from the book? I'm all for a good read, even if it just reinforces what I already know, but prefer to gain new knowledge. I can read Fix over and over, and still pick up new tidbits. How to Brew, much less so. Both are very good, and I'm glad I own both.

Absolutely, I did. I don't mean to imply otherwise. My complaint, if it is even that, is that it was a lot less than I learned from other books. To my mind, it was 95% fluff, but the remaining 5% was informative.
 
I'm actually not sure the book simply echoes what is written on this forum. Almost nobody here does cold steeping for example (not a new idea or Gordon's idea, btw). Also Gordon says the same things about autolysis (you only think it doesn't happen because you don't know what to look for) and long primaries (that if you want the best quality, don't leave the beer sitting on the primary yeast too long) that I say here and get called an idiot.

I don't know how you can stand reading this board. It drives me nuts that people are so wrong so often here, and it is just "fact" because someone with more posts said it. I can't really tolerate it much anymore, but I get bored.
 
I read this book in most of one night and returned it the next day. To me, there's nothing new in it.

I know it was a few pages back, but just because someone enters some ridiculous number of beers into competitions doesn't mean anything to me. The dude clearly has a narrow view of brewing that is centered around getting as much praise and adoration from "lesser" homebrewers as possible. Lame.
 
Back
Top