how does bad beer happen?

[newbrewerkaf]

I've had it, hell I've made it. Bad homebrew is possible ... but all the big guys giants and geniuses, say most important is ....enough yeast, prescise temp control, racking at just the right time, plenty of oxygen, no hot side o2, etc... then brulosufer and others do pretty good experiments changing temps 12 degrees, when we stress over .5. one half outdated tube of liquid yeast, when we stress over just exactly how many cells we need to grow., no shaking or air of any kind, while I worry if I ran enough o2 through the stone. .. trub or No secondary or no. 15 minutes vs 120 boil . 212 to 70 in 4 minutes, or let it set out overnight..... Ok sanitation is non negotiable but outside of that every test seems to imply that if we get some fermentable wet and near some yeast, we should make prefect beer, indistinguishable from the best most carefully planned and executed beer ever. I know relax, have a hb. I enjoy the test articles but I really have had some bad beer too much bannana and clover, cardboardy, thin ,sweet, bitter, cloudy etc so what really is important?

 

[ong]

I think many of the "rules" we follow (particularly regarding sanitation and fermentation in general) are guidelines to improving the chances of making good beer. Just as "doing all the right things" doesn't mean you can't get cancer, following all the rules doesn't mean you won't make some bad beer. You're just reducing the odds. This is of course a huge oversimplification -- plenty of stuff you can do will guarantee bad beer, and a good brewer can make nearly identical batches over and over again. But stuff like way underpitching can be a little more of a roulette spin.

 

[rupert130]

Controlling the fermentation temp seems to be important. Once I started paying attention to that, my beers have been consistently good instead of an off, estery batch every now and then.

 

[Rcbandl]

Go steward at a homebrew compitition and you will see how many people make not so good beer. Half the homebrewers out there make drinkable beer, but thats about all it is. when you compare side by side you know who is paying attention to the little details and who is "I have always done it this way and had no problems"

 

[Qhrumphf]

Yeast are resilient organisms who have millions of years of evolution lending them an incredible ability to do their job. The brewing process is incredibly forgiving, and making drinkable beer is very, very easy.

However, making excellent beer, and more importantly, being able to do it consistently, is a challenge.

If you don't control any of these factors, and you have an excellent batch come out, good for you. But try to repeat it. You won't be able to. Controlling all these factors, from recipe, to process, to water volumes, temperatures, water profiles, timing, fermentation control, aeration/oxygenation, pitching rate, etc, not only increase your odds of making good beer, but allow you to be consistent about it. I knew I had become a good brewer when I was able to rebrew the same beer and have it come out exactly the same every time.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Go steward at a homebrew compitition and you will see how many people make not so good beer. Half the homebrewers out there make drinkable beer, but thats about all it is. when you compare side by side you know who is paying attention to the little details and who is "I have always done it this way and had no problems"

+1

You'd be surprised how much lackluster beer makes it to competitions. Of course, some beers I taste at comps (I'm a judge, Certified rank for now but working on National) are really really good and rival good quality commercial beers (though I've only ever had one homebrew in a comp that I've scored in the 45+ "world class" range), but some are also drainpour-worthy, that are hard to judge it's so bad but we taste and evaluate and provide a scoresheet anyway (to all those who think judges sit back and drink free beer all day, imagine having to use the word "fecal" on a scoresheet).

But most beers fall square in the "mediocre" range, where I can drink them, there's some good things to say, but I wouldn't knowingly pay money to order it at a bar, and if I did, I wouldn't order another.

Now, I know that many of these beers are brewers who know there's something wrong with their beer, and are looking for feedback as to why. But I also know there's a lot of ugly baby syndrome going on.

 

[BlkWater_brewer]

I've had it, hell I've made it. Bad homebrew is possible ... but all the big guys giants and geniuses, say most important is ....enough yeast, prescise temp control, racking at just the right t...

Well. I will share my secret. Just say you used Brett and that is some of the Funk that resulted.

 

[Talgrath]

I've had it, hell I've made it. Bad homebrew is possible ... but all the big guys giants and geniuses, say most important is ....enough yeast, prescise temp control, racking at just the right time, plenty of oxygen, no hot side o2, etc... then brulosufer and others do pretty good experiments changing temps 12 degrees, when we stress over .5. one half outdated tube of liquid yeast, when we stress over just exactly how many cells we need to grow., no shaking or air of any kind, while I worry if I ran enough o2 through the stone. .. trub or No secondary or no. 15 minutes vs 120 boil . 212 to 70 in 4 minutes, or let it set out overnight..... Ok sanitation is non negotiable but outside of that every test seems to imply that if we get some fermentable wet and near some yeast, we should make prefect beer, indistinguishable from the best most carefully planned and executed beer ever. I know relax, have a hb. I enjoy the test articles but I really have had some bad beer too much bannana and clover, cardboardy, thin ,sweet, bitter, cloudy etc so what really is important?

For things like say, brulosopher (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to) experiments they are just changing one solitary thing as an experiment. Usually when you make a truly bad batch of beer you've actually had more than one thing go wrong or you've had one thing go extraordinarily wrong. Additionally, when you look at the experiments, they aren't doing anything terribly, horribly wrong; that high temperature you mentioned was only for pitching, not for the eventual temperature the beer was held at during fermentation, for example.

What the exBEERiments (and similar experiments with other groups) tell us is that maybe, just maybe, we're doing things we don't need to do. Maybe we don't need to get our wort to 65F before pitching the yeast, maybe hot side aeration doesn't exist, etc. The big things for making good/great beer are still the simplest, keep your beer at a cool temperature as much as possible while it ferments, pitch enough yeast to properly ferment your beer and properly prime/carb your beer. As long as you generally stick to good practices, you'll get good beer most of the time.

 

[Tazzster]

Ok sanitation is non negotiable but outside of that every test seems to imply that if we get some fermentable wet and near some yeast, we should make prefect beer,

Sanitation is over-rated.

Just stick with the wet fermentable and yeast...




To clarify, I still clean stuff... I just don't sanitize and get anal about it.

 

[bobeer]

The big ones for me are fermentation temp control, oxidation, yeast pitch amount, good brewing water, sanitation, and the crush when you're milling your own grain. If you get all those down you'll make some pretty decent beer.

 

[GCPHomebrew]

Agree with tazzter.

 

[GCPHomebrew]

+1 for bobeer.

 

[madscientist451]

If you make a "bad" beer, sometimes the hardest part is isolating what exactly you don't like about it....its just bad. That's where some help from knowledgeable brewers is really useful. Once you can isolate the faults, you can then figure out the causes and see what can be done to make corrections.
You mentioned banana and clove flavor (or perceived flavor?), that's something that can be isolated and manipulated by pitching rate and temperature control.
Keeping brew day notes is important.
I recently made a Porter that had low SG had a somewhat thin body and was was drinkable, but just barely. I checked my notes, I boiled 60 minutes, the recipe called for 90 min boil. Duh.... So since then I pull a sample with a few minutes left in the boil and check the gravity before proceeding. That small detail allows me to make corrections and head off a potential problem.
Bad beer usually doesn't just "happen" there are a series of actions that lead up to it.

 

[GrogNerd]

have always said, you really have to try to ruin your beer to actually ruin your beer. it's a major reason why RDWHAHB.

it's extremely easy to make a mediocre beer, something in which I've reached perfection

I watch this one show, "Air Disasters" and there is rarely a single reason why planes crash. it's almost always a combination of unrelated factors or a series of cascading failures.

think the same goes with beer. with less NTSB involvement

 

[Rhumbline]

I agree with GrogNerd, my experience has been that it's hard to totally fail on a beer. I've brewed a lot of tasty beers, no fails, but I don't have very high standards.

Sanitation is the only thing I don't compromise on, and all of my brews have been extract kits, so that probably removes several steps where I could screw up.

 

[elkshadow]

non-chlorinated, correctly adjusted water and fermentation temp control are the most critical to me. If you have those two things, it would be hard to make bad beer in my opinion.

Even more so that sanitation. There are monks in Belgium who open ferment in big stone squares and I'm pretty sure they are not getting them squeaky clean and star-sanning everything that touches the beer. How could you get stone that clean anyway?

I've gotten a lot more laid back about sanitation and a lot more interested in water and temperature.

 

[Rcbandl]

There are monks in Belgium who open ferment in big stone squares and I'm pretty sure they are not getting them squeaky clean and star-sanning everything that touches the beer.

Please stop the "Monks in Belgium" thing. They are looking to get some funk in their beer. Its a whole different ballgame.

And I have tried some of the "monks in belgium" beer and for my taste its not so good.

 

[elkshadow]

Please stop the "Monks in Belgium" thing. They are looking to get some funk in their beer. Its a whole different ballgame.

And I have tried some of the "monks in belgium" beer and for my taste its not so good.

OP asked "how do you make bad beer?" I offered my opinion which is that water and fermentation temperature are key and all the "sanitation is paramount to making good beer" talk is overblown and I used abbeys in Belgium fermenting in stone (with or without brett or other funk) as an example of how you can make amazing beer without worrying if your beer touches anything other than star-san it will be ruined.

The fact that you find Belgian beer "not so good" is your opinion and I respect that. But you're wrong of course. :cross:

 

[Bosh]

Also a big source is newbies not observing KISS. Really easy to screw SOMETHING up when you're making a dry hopped nut brown coffee porter lambic that's been racked on cherries and if you combine that with the small newbie goofs that wouldn't be disasters in a SMaSH beer you'll end up with some strange stuff.

 

[Qhrumphf]

When brewers are open fermenting and not looking for funk, they often do so in a specialized clean room. Including your "monks in Belgium".

There's lots of low grade infection (overcarbed, overattenuated, phenolic) homebrew out there. If you take a lackadaisical attitude to sanitation it probably includes yours, sorry. Yes, cleaning and sanitizing is paramount. You don't need to sanitize your boil kettle (which is indeed overboard but I've seen newbies do) but knowing what needs to be sanitary and doing properly is absolutely fundamental.

 

[Hello]

When brewers are open fermenting and not looking for funk, they often do so in a specialized clean room. Including your "monks in Belgium".

There's lots of low grade infection (overcarbed, overattenuated, phenolic) homebrew out there. If you take a lackadaisical attitude to sanitation it probably includes yours, sorry. Yes, cleaning and sanitizing is paramount. You don't need to sanitize your boil kettle (which is indeed overboard but I've seen newbies do) but knowing what needs to be sanitary and doing properly is absolutely fundamental.

I agree. Just because there was no visible signs of infection doesn't mean there wasn't the on set resulting in some kind of off flavor. About the BK...take your ball valve off every so often and clean it. Once the wort is chilled it passes through that thing into the fermenter and there could be gunk in there. That's really the only in-depth kettle maintenance I perform. The rest is cleaning it out with PBW and letting it air dry.

 

[ArcLight]

This helped me:

1. Use a good recipe. There are plenty of kits that are so-so and make ok tasting beer.

2. Cold crashing. I bottle and used to get a lot of yeast in the bottle. I still bottle, but cold crashing made a big difference.

3. Flame out hops (hop stand) and dry hopping have greatly helped my IPAs.