Home brew Vs. Commercial

[brewit2it]

Kind of to what Denny was saying is that you will make a great beer but not really a witbier. Because by the definition of the style a Witbier HAS those phenols and esters. To me, it sounds more like a spiced American Wheat. Which I have no doubt will turn out great.

Except that American Wheat beers aren't typically white which is what wit means if I'm not mistaken, and they have higher IBUs and late hop additions. But I get that it isn't really a true witbier. Like I suggested though it might be worthy of a new category since it is different than both a Belgian style witbier and an American Wheat.

 

[emjay]

Well, there's lots of fusions or beers that don't fit a current "style", to the point where you could probably create a hundred new styles. I wouldn't say anything is worthy of being deemed a new style until the idea catches on and becomes widely brewed.

Still, nothing is preventing you from calling it an American White Ale.

Though if you look at German Weissebier, it's often got a similar color to an American wheat, and I wouldn't really call a typical weissebier "white", but still... Weisse means "white", and Weissebier literally means "white beer".

Is a different color really enough to distinguish it from an established style, though? If I add green food coloring to an Irish Red to celebrate St. Patty's day, it's still an Irish Red. So unless the raw wheat actually changes the character of the beer significantly, I'd really say that it's just an American Wheat with a non-standard color.

 

[Denny]

I appreciate what you are saying but I don't think your analogy is completely fair since a stout vs an IPA are very different styles while I'm talking about making a white wheat beer, same grain bill and spices, etc, but only changing the yeast character. Actually what we might need (as I think Wayne once suggested) is maybe a new style; American Wit.

I think we just need to call your beer what it is...an Am. wheat with spices and fruit!

Anyway, thanks for the reply. IIPA isn't my favorite either but I can certainly enjoy them now and again when I'm in the mood to be hopped up. I like Stone Sublimely Self Righteous Ale quite a bit.

I LOVE IIPA! It's the "black" part that I think is ridiculous.

 

[Denny]

lets hear it!

With apologies for monopolizing this thread....

Many years ago, as a fairly new brewer and science geek, I decided I wanted to try yeast ranching. I ordered supplies and some random slants from a company called Brewtek. One of the slants was called "CA brewpub yeast", aka CL-50. I tried it in the Rye IPA recipe I had been developing with WY1272 and found that the CL-50 gave me a nice silky mouthfeel that really complemented the rye malt. I started talking it up online. Back in those days about the only internet beer discussions were the Usenet group rec.crafts.brewing, the HBD's brews and Views, and Skotrat's Rat Chat. People were very interested, but since you had to culture it form a slant not a lot of people were willing to go to the effort to use it. I kept it in my yeast bank, though, and used it frequently. In the meantime, Brewtek shut down and sold their strains to another co. which eventually sold them to someone else. I had met Dave Logsdon, one of the owners of Wyeast by then and suggested that maybe they should carry it since so many people were interested. Dave wasn't interested in in as long as another co. was selling it. Finally, just after I had ordered some fresh slants, the last co. with it shut down and I heard from Dave that they would carry it. (BTW, I think there are still one or 2 companies selling it on slant or plate). I gave Wyeast some samples and suggested the name it Noti Ale yeast, after a small town near where I live in the mountains. The next thing I know, they've released it as Denny's Favorite 50 with an ad showing a naked hippie wading into a mountain lake...not me, I swear!

In the words of Forrest Gump, "that's all there is to say about that!".

 

[brewit2it]

I think we just need to call your beer what it is...an Am. wheat with spices and fruit!



I LOVE IIPA! It's the "black" part that I think is ridiculous.

You have something against the color black? Now I have to say you are bordering on ridiculous. So you love IIPA but "you can't pay me to drink a "black IPA/IIPA"!" First of all it wasn't one style but rather IIPA or Black IPA with black IPA just being a subset of IIPA. But more amusingly, you love the taste of IIPA but if for some reason it is darker color you couldn't be paid to drink it? So you could love or hate a beer based completely on how well it fits your precious style outline rather than whether or not you like it's taste.

And again, making a Belgian wit with American ale yeast doesn't make it "Am. wheat with spices and fruit". A dash of orange peel hardly makes it a fruit beer however it certainly does meet style for witbier, and if you plug the recipe into beer calculus or beersmith it will meet category for witbeer and wont for American wheat. So if you want to call it anything it would be wit. I'll stick with American Wit.

And emjay, thanks for the interesting discussion. I would point out weizen mean wheat in german which is why german wheat beers are referred to as (hefe)weisen, not because they are white.

 

[osagedr]

With apologies for monopolizing this thread....

Many years ago, as a fairly new brewer and science geek, I decided I wanted to try yeast ranching. I ordered supplies and some random slants from a company called Brewtek. One of the slants was called "CA brewpub yeast", aka CL-50. I tried it in the Rye IPA recipe I had been developing with WY1272 and found that the CL-50 gave me a nice silky mouthfeel that really complemented the rye malt. I started talking it up online. Back in those days about the only internet beer discussions were the Usenet group rec.crafts.brewing, the HBD's brews and Views, and Skotrat's Rat Chat. People were very interested, but since you had to culture it form a slant not a lot of people were willing to go to the effort to use it. I kept it in my yeast bank, though, and used it frequently. In the meantime, Brewtek shut down and sold their strains to another co. which eventually sold them to someone else. I had met Dave Logsdon, one of the owners of Wyeast by then and suggested that maybe they should carry it since so many people were interested. Dave wasn't interested in in as long as another co. was selling it. Finally, just after I had ordered some fresh slants, the last co. with it shut down and I heard from Dave that they would carry it. (BTW, I think there are still one or 2 companies selling it on slant or plate). I gave Wyeast some samples and suggested the name it Noti Ale yeast, after a small town near where I live in the mountains. The next thing I know, they've released it as Denny's Favorite 50 with an ad showing a naked hippie wading into a mountain lake...not me, I swear!

In the words of Forrest Gump, "that's all there is to say about that!".

Great story--thanks for sharing!

 

[Denny]

You have something against the color black? Now I have to say you are bordering on ridiculous. So you love IIPA but "you can't pay me to drink a "black IPA/IIPA"!" First of all it wasn't one style but rather IIPA or Black IPA with black IPA just being a subset of IIPA. But more amusingly, you love the taste of IIPA but if for some reason it is darker color you couldn't be paid to drink it? So you could love or hate a beer based completely on how well it fits your precious style outline rather than whether or not you like it's taste.

Calm down and stop jumping to conclusions...it IS the flavor, not the color, that I dislike. I've tried a lot fo them and I have yet to run across one where the roasted malts play well with the hop flavors IMO. What I think is ridiculous it the name "Black IPA". It has absolutely nothing to do with fitting style. It's about flavor and to some degree, semantics (hey, I used to be an English major. I get to be cranky about stuff like that).

And again, making a Belgian wit with American ale yeast doesn't make it "Am. wheat with spices and fruit". A dash of orange peel hardly makes it a fruit beer however it certainly does meet style for witbier, and if you plug the recipe into beer calculus or beersmith it will meet category for witbeer and wont for American wheat. So if you want to call it anything it would be wit. I'll stick with American Wit.

You're arguing that adding orange and wheat makes it to style for a wit, but discounting the addition that yeast makes to that style? I don't get it....and I don't care what Beersmith has to say.

 

[emjay]

And emjay, thanks for the interesting discussion. I would point out weizen mean wheat in german which is why german wheat beers are referred to as (hefe)weisen, not because they are white.

I didn't say weizen, I said weisse. Weizen means wheat. Weisse means white. Looking in my fridge, I have Schneider, Erdinger, and Weihenstephaner, which refer to themselves as Weisse/Weissbier/Hefe Weissbier, respectively.

Btw... as much as I love BeerSmith, it only deals with the numbers and those numbers are limits for the style, but do not define them. Read up on the qualitative descriptions - yeast is central to wit. Just as it's central to almost every other Belgian style, and it's undeniably what separates a German wheat beer from other styles. BeerSmith can't necessarily differentiate between a German or American wheat, and if you just looked at the numbers on my last brew, you certainly wouldn't immediately think, "oh, he brewed a lambic."

 

[brewit2it]

Calm down and stop jumping to conclusions...it IS the flavor, not the color, that I dislike. I've tried a lot fo them and I have yet to run across one where the roasted malts play well with the hop flavors IMO. What I think is ridiculous it the name "Black IPA". It has absolutely nothing to do with fitting style. It's about flavor and to some degree, semantics (hey, I used to be an English major. I get to be cranky about stuff like that).



You're arguing that adding orange and wheat makes it to style for a wit, but discounting the addition that yeast makes to that style? I don't get it....and I don't care what Beersmith has to say.

Your yeast story is awesome by the way. I really do want to try it.

We're always biased by our eyes since visual appearance is the first impression. I can't help wondering if someone even with your trained palate could line up a group of IIPA samples in order of decending SRM blinded. I really doubt it.

I guess the area of disagreement is do the ingredients or the yeast define what style a beer is? I call it wit because it is white in color and follows a witbier recipe with the only (and admittedly significant) difference being using ale yeast, because like I said, I don't like all the fruity esters and phenols. You still get some, but not as the dominant flavor.

Anyway, thanks for the input. I really appreciate getting to discuss stuff with someone of your experience and accomplishments.

Take care.

 

[brewit2it]

I didn't say weizen, I said weisse. Weizen means wheat. Weisse means white. Looking in my fridge, I have Schneider, Erdinger, and Weihenstephaner, which refer to themselves as Weisse/Weissbier/Hefe Weissbier, respectively.

Btw... as much as I love BeerSmith, it only deals with the numbers and those numbers are limits for the style, but do not define them. Read up on the qualitative descriptions - yeast is central to wit. Just as it's central to almost every other Belgian style, and it's undeniably what separates a German wheat beer from other styles. BeerSmith can't necessarily differentiate between a German or American wheat, and if you just looked at the numbers on my last brew, you certainly wouldn't immediately think, "oh, he brewed a lambic."

True weiss directly translates to white but it has come to designate wheat beer. Thats why hefeweiss or hefewizen are used interchageably and why there are dunkle weiss which is designating a dark wheat beer, nothing to do with a white beer. Wit on the other hand will always be a very pale or "white" wheat.

 

[Denny]

We're always biased by our eyes since visual appearance is the first impression. I can't help wondering if someone even with your trained palate could line up a group of IIPA samples in order of decending SRM blinded. I really doubt it.

If you used Sinamar, which only affects the color, I doubt I could. But if you used different amounts of roasted malts, I'd do better at differentiating.

I guess the area of disagreement is do the ingredients or the yeast define what style a beer is? I call it wit because it is white in color and follows a witbier recipe with the only (and admittedly significant) difference being using ale yeast, because like I said, I don't like all the fruity esters and phenols. You still get some, but not as the dominant flavor.

Anyway, thanks for the input. I really appreciate getting to discuss stuff with someone of your experience and accomplishments.

Take care.

You seem to discount the yeast as an ingredient. It's the sum total of all the ingredients. But in the final analysis, it's the _taste_ that defines a style. No matter what does or doesn't go into it, it's the way the beer tastes that makes it what it is (or isn't).

Good discussion...thanks!

 

[bob1852]

It's the sum total of all the ingredients. But in the final analysis, it's the _taste_ that defines a style. No matter what does or doesn't go into it, it's the way the beer tastes that makes it what it is (or isn't).

Good discussion...thanks!

Yes. I've got a brown ale that uses English hops and London Ale yeast. It has done really well in several compeitions under American Brown Ale. Its "taste" fits better in 10C than in 11B or 11C.

 

[gclay]

Denny -- How would your yeast be in a session beer, apx 3% abv? The wife wants me to make one before the wit.

But I will be using munich as my base malt, I love the munich, oat, tettnager, northern brewer beer I made and I want to do a lighter version.

 

[Homebrewtastic]

For a session beer I've used it in a ruby mild before and it was delicious. Imagine a really small American amber.... Now that I'm talking about it it may be time for a rebrew.

 

[rycov]

nice. i appreciate the story denny. always funny back storys on how things get named.

 

[Denny]

Denny -- How would your yeast be in a session beer, apx 3% abv? The wife wants me to make one before the wit.

But I will be using munich as my base malt, I love the munich, oat, tettnager, northern brewer beer I made and I want to do a lighter version.

I think it would work well. Low alcohol session beers can be a bit thin sometimes, and the full mouthfeel from 1450 would help to combat that.

 

[Nightbiker]

ok, I was just reading the article on wits in the new BYO. I'm still picking up a few packs you can never have too much yeast around

+1 to that! And as far as I'm concerned, every brewing yeast deserves to be placed in a bank as well!

 

[Nightbiker]

cool story! I intend to order up some of Denny's favorite 50, and bank it (perhaps it will do nicely in a summer ale...)

 

[SDVmnt]

LMFAO -

"Exactly, same reason your farts don't smell and your baby isn't ugly."

Classic

 

[Yooper]

That's very kind of you, but I'm just a homebrewer like everybody else here. Maybe a bit luckier, maybe a few more batches, but as Red Green said "we're all in this together".

Red Green- my hero. :rockin:

Now I have to say you are bordering on ridiculous.....
And again, making a Belgian wit with American ale yeast doesn't make it "Am. wheat with spices and fruit". A dash of orange peel hardly makes it a fruit beer however it certainly does meet style for witbier, and if you plug the recipe into beer calculus or beersmith it will meet category for witbeer and wont for American wheat. So if you want to call it anything it would be wit. I'll stick with American Wit.

True weiss directly translates to white but it has come to designate wheat beer. Thats why hefeweiss or hefewizen are used interchageably and why there are dunkle weiss which is designating a dark wheat beer, nothing to do with a white beer. Wit on the other hand will always be a very pale or "white" wheat.

I found it hysterically funny that you're arguing with one of the directors of the AHA about styles. That actually made me laugh at loud. He's modest, and been very respectful of you. But you've been insulting, demeaning, and just all around abrasive.

 

[Yooper]

cool story! I intend to order up some of Denny's favorite 50, and bank it (perhaps it will do nicely in a summer ale...)

It's my go-to strain. I make mostly American style beers, usually IPAs, APAs, and ambers. But I've used this strain for an oatmeal stout as well, and I'd have to say it provided a "lucsious" moutfeel. Really rich and full without being cloying or underattenuated. I used it in my 21st Amendment's Bitter American clone, and thought it was perfect. It's a nice strain that allows the malt to be strong, while allowing the hops to shine. I'm a big fan.

 

[bob1852]

Back on topic...

 

[Nightbiker]

It's my go-to strain. I make mostly American style beers, usually IPAs, APAs, and ambers. But I've used this strain for an oatmeal stout as well, and I'd have to say it provided a "lucsious" moutfeel. Really rich and full without being cloying or underattenuated. I used it in my 21st Amendment's Bitter American clone, and thought it was perfect. It's a nice strain that allows the malt to be strong, while allowing the hops to shine. I'm a big fan.

damn Yooper, you're getting me all excited and bothered here!
Seriously though, looking at this yeasts' specs it looks like a really good all-around yeast. I hope my LHBS stocks it -if not, I'll just order some and make a big starter (enough to save a bit for the bank) -it is listed as fairly low on the floculation -how well DOES it come out of suspension? I can't imagine it being used in the lighter ales (color) if it didn't drop out fairly well (unless you filter? -never tried filtering and it might be a decent excuse to buy another toy...)

 

[brewit2it]

Red Green- my hero. :rockin:





But you've been insulting, demeaning, and just all around abrasive.

Well, thanks for sharing your feelings. Seems a bit harsh.

I'm guessing most of the guys aren't quite so thin skinned. You could ask if anyone felt insulted or demeaned.

 

[emjay]

Well, thanks for sharing your feelings.

I'm guessing most of the guys aren't quite so thin skinned. You could ask if anyone felt insulted or demeaned just to be sure though.

You don't have to feel insulted to know somebody was being insulting, demeaning, condescension, etc. And your posts, even when not directly insulting, have an extremely dismissive and patronizing attitude that is, if anything, even more insulting than anything you could directly say to somebody.

You think nobody's dealt with someone like you before? I guarantee everybody here has, because guys like you are a dime a dozen. Which is ironic, because they all think they're uniquely clever (which is actually a large part of the problem.)

Anyways, I hate to contribute to the thread derailment here, especially with such a negative post, but you literally asked for it.

 

[brewit2it]

You don't have to feel insulted to know somebody was being insulting, demeaning, condescension, etc. And your posts, even when not directly insulting, have an extremely dismissive and patronizing attitude that is, if anything, even more insulting than anything you could directly say to somebody.

You think nobody's dealt with someone like you before? I guarantee everybody here has, because guys like you are a dime a dozen. Which is ironic, because they all think they're uniquely clever (which is actually a large part of the problem.)

Anyways, I hate to contribute to the thread derailment here, especially with such a negative post, but you literally asked for it.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about or how you think you have any insight into my nature or my worth. I actually get frequent thumbsup and try to be as helpful as possible. Click on my name and check out my threads and posts. "Dealt with someone like you"? Seriously? Lets just assume I'm on your ignore list and you on mine and leave it at that.

 

[Pappers_]

Well, thanks for sharing your feelings. Seems a bit harsh.

I'm guessing most of the guys aren't quite so thin skinned. You could ask if anyone felt insulted or demeaned.

Yes, I thought some of your posts in this thread were inappropriate.

 

[Hex]

You all know this could be such a wonderful place, but like every forum I've ever participated in, there are people there with everything people bring. All of us are guilty of having opinions and egos, I hope y'all can resolve your differences, and participate with loving kindness in your hearts.:fro:

ps. I still believe homebrew is better, and not just my own.

 

[osagedr]

damn Yooper, you're getting me all excited and bothered here!

I hope it's not the avatar...

 

[Boy]

SO although this thread spun out of control from the onset I would like to post up a book I found this morning that did answer some of my questions. While searching fermenter geometry, since I plan to move to primarily 13G Vittle Vaults, I found this book. Goes in depth on the shape of fermenters, history, yeast, and quality. Specifically the distribution of the yeast, time on the yeast, and filtering, with an emphasis on shallow open fermentation vessels and tall conicals.

http://books.google.com/books?id=L3SU4ahY-m4C&pg=PA269&lpg=PA269&dq=fermenter+geometry&source=bl&ots=kragS6T77I&sig=Zvf4pEJCr7dgFEv1UtZaBtEngP0&hl=en&ei=vif2TaWhBY7GsAPpyaDTCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=fermenter%20geometry&f=false