I uninvite myself to brew days... Do you?

[ericbw]

I think you need to re-read what was said. It was the opposite. That just because it was more tragic, that it didn't mean they drank it.

Good call.

 

[TobyG]

Did someone unearth an ancient diary with BJCP-style notes critiquing the ales of the day?

Don't be ridiculous. They used the checklist style sheets in ancient times. Much less feedback given.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Why do you think that ale from antiquity was the same as now? Some might have been, but most probably was different. You seem to think that conditions, ingredients, and process were all the same. And there is a lot of variation in all of those aspects.

Because unless you are brewing for style, beer is beer. The process to make is not changed. These people were not brewing for hobby. They brewed for sustenance. And when it is done because it is necessary you don't screw around with unknowns.

The ease in which a brewer today can foul a beer is effortlessly difficult thus great effort (in those times) must have been made to avoid that back then to create something so worthy of poetic praises or to be etched in stone in remembrance.

Barley is barley until you understand it's diastase or potential. But even without that knowledge if you malt it, mash it, and ferment it, it will make a beer. And it you do it right, it will make a damned good beer that may even be memorialized as a style.

Style was born, primarily, because people used what they had through trials to make it work.

 

[boydster]

Don't be ridiculous. They used the checklist style sheets in ancient times. Much less feedback given.

HA!

[ ] Did it get me drunk?
[ ] Did it make me sick?

...End of scorecard. Please answer using a #2 pointy rock to etch only the applicable answers. Double stamp. No erasies!

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Cleanliness and sanitation are not the same. If something looked clean, it was clean. They may have dried the pot over the fire, sanitizing it, but that would leave soot, making it look dirty. Wipe that out with a dry rag, and you have a clean pot. Except that the rag had mold on it or blood or whatever else.

I think you forget that creating a layer of char in the barrel was a vital part of cooperage. It is also possible that fermenters back then were clay and that the innoculation of the succesive batch was done with the yeast trapped in the clay or the wood. Prior to fermentation, sanitation is really more aesthetic since the boil takes care of the wort.

 

[bob1852]

No. I said "And it is asinine to think that barley, water, yeast, and herbs were so vastly different then than now." And that was a succint way to say that it is foolish, absurd, illogical, ignorant to think that 2 row, dihydrogen monoxide, saccharomyces cerevisia, and herbs is anything other than barley, water, yeast, and herbs. The only thing different about them today is in-depth understanding of selective cultivation of which was useless to a people that had no understanding of yeast and only wished to produce a beer. And frankly, only useful to those who have need to produce a "style" of beer.

This was not succint.

 

[jbaysurfer]

I, humbly, disagree. Certainly, there were no malting companies but that does not mean that malted barley was by chance except at it's inception. Certainly by the time beer had become a staple to water the brewer was intimately familiar with teh process to malt despite not having the metrics. In fact, brewers then had a more intimate connection with every aspect of the process because they could not pop over to baccus and barleycorn for pre-made kit. No, they had to harvest, malt, and roast it all before they produce a weeks libation for the table. the house yeast, while unknown to the brewer, was naturally selected by the brewery through it's reproductive generations. Certainly they had no specified metric to brew by but that does not mean thay made good beer by chance. They were still able to determine acceptable ratios, by trial, to suit their taste.

As to the ingredients, it is our in-depth understanding of then that has changed to the point where we may specify. The process of modification is still the same.

You acknowledge technological improvements in the early part of the timeline, but discount the late ones...even though Moore's law would assert it's infinitely more advanced now then it was then.

I get the argument that if you took someone then and gave them a choice between say SNPA and their local stuff, there's no way to guarantee they'd choose the SNPA, but I believe in evolution and my own anecdotal data tells me the advances in the last 3 decades have produced monumentally better beer, with more options, and repeatability (which is good to most modern beer drinkers) then there were even 30 years ago.

If there's even a chance that modern QC doesn't make "better" (acknowledged as subjective term) beer, then I'm not sure why companies would spend so much capital in pursuing things like temperature control, laboratories, sanitizing and cleaning chemicals, sanitary welds, stainless steel, yeast propagators, conical fermenters and on and on and on. To me all the evidence says the assertion that beer today is "better" points to the affirmative. So saying it out loud is at worst arguable, but light years from asinine.

I know I'm getting a little tangential as the original post referenced ingredients, but to me a large portion of the technological advancements in the brewing industry have been devoted to increasing the quality of the ingredients. Natural selection happens without laboratories, but brewers being able to select yeasts based on the qualities they and their customers desire, and be able to rely on that yeast to produce those qualities, is the reason technologically advanced facilities like White Labs exist.

PS, this is just an interesting discussion for me, not to belabor, but just to clarify, it's literally just the term "asinine" that I took issue with. I think the claim of improved ingredients might be a legitimate claim, and to me that disqualifies it from 'asinine' status.

PSS, In rereading this I'm all over the place. Perhaps not very good debate fodder. Yes, barley is barley and yeast is yeast, I just think technological advances have yielded IMPROVED beer from the early days. What that means is 100% subjective, so it's kind of unproveable.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

This was not succint.

Hee-Haw.

 

[boydster]

Beer = good. Succinct. :rockin:

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

You acknowledge technological improvements in the early part of the timeline, but discount the late ones...even though Moore's law would assert it's infinitely more advanced now then it was then.

I get the argument that if you took someone then and gave them a choice between say SNPA and their local stuff, there's no way to guarantee they'd choose the SNPA, but I believe in evolution and my own anecdotal data tells me the advances in the last 3 decades have produced monumentally better beer, with more options, and repeatability (which is good to most modern beer drinkers) then there were even 30 years ago.

If there's even a chance that modern QC doesn't make "better" (acknowledged as subjective term) beer, then I'm not sure why companies would spend so much capital in pursuing things like temperature control, laboratories, sanitizing and cleaning chemicals, sanitary welds, stainless steel, yeast propagators, conical fermenters and on and on and on. To me all the evidence says the assertion that beer today is "better" points to the affirmative. So saying it out loud is at worst arguable, but light years from asinine.

I know I'm getting a little tangential as the original post referenced ingredients, but to me a large portion of the technological advancements in the brewing industry have been devoted to increasing the quality of the ingredients. Natural selection happens without laboratories, but brewers being able to select yeasts based on the qualities they and their customers desire, and be able to rely on that yeast to produce those qualities, is the reason technologically advanced facilities like White Labs exist.

PS, this is just an interesting discussion for me, not to belabor, but just to clarify, it's literally just the term "asinine" that I took issue with. I think the claim of improved ingredients might be a legitimate claim, and to me that disqualifies it from 'asinine' status.

I don't see the capital investments as being to produce better beer, only more consistent beer with less chance for waste. To ruin a batch today is effortlessly difficult but to recover from a ruined batch on such a large scale is a capital disaster.

Mine was never a style based argument. But style is also a factor as to the advancements of yeast and barley selectivity with cause for duplication. Mine was a argument toward a perfectly drinkable "beer" made from what is available locally.

But furthermore, it is also another thing to compare beer made for capital gain to that made for survival. The initial assertian was that beer made 1000+ years ago was crap compared to beer made today and to that I just do not see the evidence.

 

[jbaysurfer]

I'm sorry, but that's just ignorant. People have been malting barley intentionally for 1000s of years (yes, thousands plural ). And yes, there were professional maltsters.

Well, in fairness, this thread is full of asininity.

Ah yes...I understand. I thought I was having a fun conversation, but some people aren't quite capable of respectful disagreement. Makes it not so fun. My true ignorance and asininity lies in my faith that whatever I said wouldn't have triggered hostility since it is, afterall, just a diversion for most of us engaging in the conversation.

 

[jbaysurfer]

I don't see the capital investments as being to produce better beer, only more consistent beer with less chance for waste. To ruin a batch today is effortlessly difficult but to recover from a ruined batch on such a large scale is a capital disaster.

Mine was never a style based argument. But style is also a factor as to the advancements of yeast and barley selectivity with cause for duplication. Mine was a argument toward a perfectly drinkable "beer" made from what is available locally.

But furthermore, it is also another thing to compare beer made for capital gain to that made for survival. The initial assertian was that beer made 1000+ years ago was crap compared to beer made today and to that I just do not see the evidence.

I guess if you allow that individual taste might merit one style as "better" then another then I could argue the counterpoint, and alas, to many BJCP judges I know the beer that's more to style IS the "better" beer....nonetheless, consistency probably is a better explanation for the employment of the technological advances.

 

[boydster]

The initial assertian was that beer made 1000+ years ago was crap compared to beer made today and to that I just do not see the evidence.

There is no evidence. Only conjecture. The beer and the people that drank it are gone.

 

[bob1852]

If there's even a chance that modern QC doesn't make "better" (acknowledged as subjective term) beer, then I'm not sure why companies would spend so much capital in pursuing things like temperature control, laboratories, sanitizing and cleaning chemicals, sanitary welds, stainless steel, yeast propagators, conical fermenters and on and on and on.

Don't confuse "better" with consistent.

companies are doing all of the above for consistent results so that every production of xyz tastes the same, not better.

 

[jbaysurfer]

Don't confuse "better" with consistent.

companies are doing all of the above for consistent results so that every production of xyz tastes the same, not better.

See above. I know people who absolutely assert that "more consistent" is "better" I still think you and Gila are not allowing that what "crap" or "better" means in the context of beer are 100 subjective to the taster, and when something's 100% subjective, I think it's incorrect to label a dissenting assertion (that the beer back then was "crap" if you will...) as "asinine".

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

PSS, In rereading this I'm all over the place. Perhaps not very good debate fodder. Yes, barley is barley and yeast is yeast, I just think technological advances have yielded IMPROVED beer from the early days. What that means is 100% subjective, so it's kind of unproveable.

To this I retort that technological advances have yielded a global variety of beer that was impossible or not so easily had in the early days prior to IPA.

But, lets just say that all early beer most closely represented a mild, because there was no "style" then. Beer was what the available ingredients allowed it to be. What I am saying is there is no evidence that because of the lack of technological advance that the mild of early years is crap compared to mild brewed today. I am saying that literary praise supports the opposite. The difference is that the advances of today make it exponentially easier to produce. Furthermore, tech advances make for tangible consistency which is paramount in capitalism. But, maybe not so much in the early years when you ponied up to say "Gimme an ale". Which also coincides with the love that many have for real ale, it changes in the cask. But still, even when it gets to the point where that change is no longer desirable they did not feel compelled to choke it down.

Instead they blended it to create Porter.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

There is no evidence. Only conjecture. The beer and the people that drank it are gone.

Ahhh. But their praises still live on stone and paper.

 

[jbaysurfer]

To this I retort that technological advances have yielded a global variety of beer that was impossible or not so easily had in the early days prior to IPA.

But, lets just say that all early beer most closely represented a mild, because there was no "style" then. Beer was what the available ingredients allowed it to be. What I am saying is there is no evidence that because of the lack of technological advance that the mild of early years is crap compared to mild brewed today. I am saying that literary praise supports the opposite. The difference is that the advances of today make it exponentially easier to produce. Furthermore, tech advances make for tangible consistency which is paramount in capitalism. But, maybe not so much in the early years when you ponied up to say "Gimme an ale". Which also coincides with the love that many have for real ale, it changes in the cask. But still, even when it gets to the point where that change is no longer desirable they did not feel compelled to choke it down.

Instead they blended it to create Porter.

I don't know that literary praise was then, or even is now, a reliable indicator, (since many will measure the quality of the product, even today, by it's intoxicating effect) but your point is a good one nonetheless. I don't know that I have much else to offer other then, I think it's true that a mild today is better then a mild of ancient times. If for no other reason then: the mild of today can by drunk by me!

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

See above. I know people who absolutely assert that "more consistent" is "better" I still think you and Gila are not allowing that what "crap" or "better" means in the context of beer are 100 subjective to the taster, and when something's 100% subjective, I think it's incorrect to label a dissenting assertion (that the beer back then was "crap" if you will...) as "asinine".

I have always been arguing that early beer was not this "warm, murky, sour fusel/phenol/DMS/acetaldehyde bombs blacksmiths drank at the end of a long day".

More consistent IS better. But only in the context that all you will drink is IPA, or Pilsner.

But in a time when beer was made only from ingredients of the area, consistency is somewhat naturally selected and affected only by process.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

I don't know that literary praise was then, or even is now, a reliable indicator, ...

Possibly not. But, if I may,

Fill with mingled cream and amber,
I will drain that glass again.
Such hilarious visions clamber
Through the chamber of my brain —
Quaintest thoughts — queerest fancies
Come to life and fade away;
What care I how time advances?
I am drinking ale today.

While certainly not written a 1000+ years ago, does this not wet your whistle? I am sorry, but "mingled cream and amber" does not scream a murky pint of DMS. And "I will drain that glass again" does not suggest that it was choked down out of necessity.

 

[hunter_le five]

Ah yes...I understand. I thought I was having a fun conversation, but some people aren't quite capable of respectful disagreement. Makes it not so fun. My true ignorance and asininity lies in my faith that whatever I said wouldn't have triggered hostility since it is, afterall, just a diversion for most of us engaging in the conversation.

I'm not being hostile or disrespectful. I was merely objecting to one of your points (your mischaracterization of how primitive malting was in the middle ages - they may not have understood the enzymatic process, but by that point they had had thousands of years of practicing the process and at the very least understood the HOW of it).

Your statement was, in fact, ignorant ("lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular", according to my dictionary). Based on your statement, I concluded that you lacked historical perspective on the subject.

Hell, I pretty much agree with everything else you said. Nothing personal. But of course, because written words lack the expressive capability (verbal cues, body language, facial expression, tone and inflection, etc) of face to face conversation, so I can see how my reply might be perceived as "*******" (for lack of a better word), and I suspect much of the perceived animosity in this thread is derived similarly.

Anyway, this thread is going nowhere fast, so I for one will bow out. Cheers.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Anyway, this thread is going nowhere fast, so I for one will bow out. Cheers.

This thread never started to go anywhere except through the revolutions of the clock.

 

[boydster]

Ahhh. But their praises still live on stone and paper.

You know as well as I do that you can't taste the beer that spilled on that paper one drunken evening 500 years ago to allow for a comparitive analysis. Imagine the oxidation....

People praised leaches, too. Luckily, doctors were actually able to compare using leaches to more modern techniques, so this kind of circular debate doesn't happen around those ugly slimy critters.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

You know as well as I do that you can't taste the beer that spilled on that paper one drunken evening 500 years ago to allow for a comparitive analysis. Imagine the oxidation....

I am more concerned about the paper cut.

However, there have been accounts of beer recovered from shipwrecks 200+ years old and even the EAC's agreed it was good.

 

[bob1852]

People praised leaches, too. Luckily, doctors were actually able to compare using leaches to more modern techniques, so this kind of circular debate doesn't happen around those ugly slimy critters.

http://www.livescience.com/203-maggots-leeches-medicine.html

 

[jbaysurfer]

I'm not being hostile or disrespectful. I was merely objecting to one of your points (your mischaracterization of how primitive malting was in the middle ages - they may not have understood the enzymatic process, but by that point they had had thousands of years of practicing the process and at the very least understood the HOW of it).

Your statement was, in fact, ignorant ("lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular", according to my dictionary). Based on your statement, I concluded that you lacked historical perspective on the subject.

Hell, I pretty much agree with everything else you said. Nothing personal. But of course, because written words lack the expressive capability (verbal cues, body language, facial expression, tone and inflection, etc) of face to face conversation, so I can see how my reply might be perceived as "*******" (for lack of a better word), and I suspect much of the perceived animosity in this thread is derived similarly.

Anyway, this thread is going nowhere fast, so I for one will bow out. Cheers.

But you derived something I didn't say. I never claimed that in the entirety of beer's history a professional malster never existed (until today)...I merely claimed the earliest instances of beer were most certainly accidental, and that includes the malting process. Sure it didn't take long before someone realized your could germinate the malt by controlling the level of a bucket in a well (see, I'm not ignorant!), but the likelihood that it was done on purpose at the very onset of the history of beer is exceedingly low.

Ignorant is a charged word. Merely posting it's definition does not strip it of it's connotation. The next time you're in a biker bar, imagine yourself walking up to the meanest looking dude of the bunch and telling him he's ignorant. I don't think webster will save ya.

All that said, I'm just having fun. You guys are smart people and it's fun to kill time on a slow friday for me conversing with you. Cheers!

 

[bob1852]

But you derived something I didn't say.

Lot of that going around in this thread.

 

[TobyG]

PSS, In rereading this I'm all over the place

PPS = Post-PostScript HTH HAND /PEDANTIC

 

[jbaysurfer]

PPS = Post-PostScript HTH HAND /PEDANTIC

Pedantic makes the internet go round.

Lot of that going around in this thread.

LOL...is that a jab at me? I don't remember doing that, but then again, I guess by definition I would be unaware of it. Is anyone else drinking?

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

http://www.livescience.com/203-maggots-leeches-medicine.html

boom!

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Pedantic makes the internet go round.


LOL...is that a jab at me? I don't remember doing that, but then again, I guess by definition I would be unaware of it. Is anyone else drinking?

Az is experienced in deciphering the general context of my babble. Others, not so much.

 

[bob1852]

LOL...is that a jab at me? I don't remember doing that, but then again, I guess by definition I would be unaware of it. Is anyone else drinking?

No jabs. I thought we all were just having fun.

 

[jbaysurfer]

http://www.livescience.com/203-maggots-leeches-medicine.html

That article is from way back in 2005. Technological advances have certainly improved since then.

Ok...I'll stop. I'm just getting nonsensical at this point...

 

[jbaysurfer]

No jabs. I thought we all were just having fun.

For sure AZ...it's hard to turn off neurosis that leads to overanalysis. A couple more beers and I'll be there.

 

[bob1852]

That article is from way back in 2005. Technological advances have certainly improved since then.

Ok...I'll stop. I'm just getting nonsensical at this point...

At this point?

 

[jbaysurfer]

at this point?

lmao....

 

[boydster]

http://www.livescience.com/203-maggots-leeches-medicine.html

Touche. Instead of leeches and doctors, how about we use alchemy and chemistry as the example? The point remains valid. No one here has tasted the beer that they are praising or talking down about, but there are strong opinions on both sides. I feel like flowers smelled prettier 1000 years ago. Prove they didn't. Perhaps that is getting too far off topic though?

 

[bob1852]

Perhaps that is getting too far off topic though?

In this thread????????????

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

I feel like flowers smelled prettier 1000 years ago. Prove they didn't.

Given the assumed general lack of hygiene, you are likley correct.

 

[hunter_le five]

Let's all just get drunk and eat chicken fingers.