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

[LandoLincoln]

Low opinions of me that were brought on by my original post aside, I have gained some perspective.

They don't actually want me there for help, just the company. It's more like "hey, we happen to be brewing but come hang out." and not "hey, come help us brew". I guess I misunderstood my purpose.

Just remember that people learn best from royally screwing things up and you'll be golden.

 

[MindenMan]

Just remember that people learn best from royally screwing things up and you'll be golden.

That comment is totally screwed up. j/k To me, wasting any of my soon to be beer nectar of the gods, o.k. I'll stop
In spite of partially emptying my fermenter once before, I once again left the spigot in the ON position. I remember to sanitize like crazy, but during the assembly part I still left the valve wide opened. ADHD is a nightmare for a brewer, I remember to check everything, but then I don't remember if I remembered to remember. ;-)

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

If you're going to say that beer today is the same, or is even made the same, as it was in antiquity, you should check facts. I'm saying that beer has changed in the last 2-300 years with crystal malts, and in the last 1000 or so years with the use of hops. What was acceptable beer at one point is bad at another point.

No, we probably can't know for sure that The old kind of ale was good or bad by our standards. But we can deduce that it was different.

Someone mentioned reading John Palmer. That's only good until the next revision when he might change his mind on something. It changes all the time.

It's ok to check your facts. Or you can just post what pops into your head.

You give the people of the last 1000 years so very little credit as to their ability. And yet, they accomplished feats we would not dream of attempting today. And it is asinine to think that barley, water, yeast, and herbs were so vastly different then than now.

The facts are that beer has ALWAYS been made by steeping mixtures malted barley of varied degree of roast to a point where it creates a syrupy, sugary, soup. And then it is cooled and innoculated either by dropping in the magic beer stick or by a packet of nottingham. Then it is left to sit till it goes foamy and then not. Then it is stored until ready to consume.

The fact is that if the beer was bad, then it would not have become the staple that it had become because there were other options like wine, milk, and fruit juices. It was not simply the only option to water. It was simply the preferred option by many.

What exactly is so special about Crystal malt that you are convinced it was not possible to make 300 year ago? the fact is, nothing. It's green malt, stewed and roasted to a desired doneness. The only part of crystal that is substantial about the patent of it is it specifications of temperature and lovibond. Important for consistent recreation but not imperative. Hell, you can even make the sh!t at home in your oven.

The facts is that brewers today are so anal retentitively caught in the specifics of lovibond, diastatic power, potential yield, percent alpha, and degrees fareighnheit constants that it's MORE amazing that anyone here can produce something drinkable much less appreciable. yet, we are still able to toss our foaming buckets in a closet and result ourselves in crystal clean malty, hoppy goodness.

 

[TobyG]

They don't actually want me there for help, just the company. It's more like "hey, we happen to be brewing but come hang out." and not "hey, come help us brew". I guess I misunderstood my purpose.

That's pretty much it. I don't invite people to my brew days to nitpick my process (that's just a side benefit). It's just free labor to tote things. lol No, but really it's ultimately just to hang out and bide the time while waiting for enzymes and processes to do their thing. Ultimately making beer is a few minutes of intense activity followed by an hour or so of sitting and drinking, rinse, and repeat.

 

[jbaysurfer]

And it is asinine to think that barley, water, yeast, and herbs were so vastly different then than now.

While I think the process is what's changed the most, the ingredients and their preparation/modification are totally different. There were no malting companies. For brewing grain to be viable for conversion it was almost by chance. The water they used in the middle ages was the same water that the public couldn't drink.

It wasn't until the 19th century that brewers even knew yeast existed, so clearly the yeast handling, pitching rates etc were less then ideal prior to that. So much has changed. Asinine is just a really strong word when there was so much so blatantly different between "then" and now.

None of this is about not giving credit to the first brewers..it's about giving credit to technological advances that have allowed even us homebrewers to go from producing poor quality, often barely drinkable beer 30 years ago, to being able to rival the best beers in the world now.

Much of that change is change in ingredient quality, handling. If we can see advances in our lifetimes to the degree we have in beer quality produced by homebrewers it's certainly not asinine to deduce that the beer quality 1000 years ago was not at the level it is now.

I say all this fully acknowledging that maybe there was some sort of devolution in the craft between 1000 years ago and 30 years, ago, but to me, that's not intuitive. It's a logical leap.

Just my $.02 and all IMHO.

 

[bob1852]

yet, we are still able to toss our foaming buckets in a closet and result ourselves in crystal clean malty, hoppy goodness.

Or in your case, stare at all your empty shiny equipment in your garage and attic.

it's certainly not asinine to deduce that the beer quality 1000 years ago was not at the level it is now.

No one is saying that. What we're saying is it's an asinine assupmtion that if presented with a SNPA and warm, uncarbed, likely slightly soured, ale; the people of that time would automatically choose the beer we have today because it's "better."

Honestly, there is no such thing as "better" beer.

 

[jbaysurfer]

Or in your case, stare at all your empty shiny equipment in your garage and attic.



No one is saying that. What we're saying is it's an asinine assupmtion that if presented with a SNPA and warm, uncarbed, likely slightly soured, ale; the people of that time would automatically choose the beer we have today because it's "better."

Honestly, there is no such thing as "better" beer.

That's probably an esoteric argument I'm unqualified to engage in. But the palate never lies. What's "better" is undeniably the sole domain of the taster, and who are we to say someone else's taste is "asinine"? It's really just that statement I take issue with. It's way too strong.

 

[bob1852]

That's probably an esoteric argument I'm unqualified to engage in. But the palate never lies. What's "better" is undeniably the sole domain of the taster, and who are we to say someone else's taste is "asinine"? It's really just that statement I take issue with. It's way too strong.

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

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

While I think the process is what's changed the most, the ingredients and their preparation/modification are totally different. There were no malting companies. For brewing grain to be viable for conversion it was almost by chance. The water they used in the middle ages was the same water that the public couldn't drink.

It wasn't until the 19th century that brewers even knew yeast existed, so clearly the yeast handling, pitching rates etc were less then ideal prior to that. So much has changed. Asinine is just a really strong word when there was so much so blatantly different between "then" and now.

None of this is about not giving credit to the first brewers..it's about giving credit to technological advances that have allowed even us homebrewers to go from producing poor quality, often barely drinkable beer 30 years ago, to being able to rival the best beers in the world now.

Much of that change is change in ingredient quality, handling. If we can see advances in our lifetimes to the degree we have in beer quality produced by homebrewers it's certainly not asinine to deduce that the beer quality 1000 years ago was not at the level it is now.

I say all this fully acknowledging that maybe there was some sort of devolution in the craft between 1000 years ago and 30 years, ago, but to me, that's not intuitive. It's a logical leap.

Just my $.02 and all IMHO.

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.

 

[hunter_le five]

There were no malting companies. For brewing grain to be viable for conversion it was almost by chance.

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.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

... who are we to say someone else's taste is "asinine"?

What? My argument has always been that it is asinine to assume that beer 1000 years ago, or more, was this horribly undrinkable concoction by current standards. And that it is asinine to assume that the process has changed so drastically that what we drink today is in no way comparable to what they drank back then. It was beer back then and it was so enjoyable that poems were written about it, songs were sung. It is beer today and it is so enjoyable that we muck about in forums to dissect it.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

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.

+1 Domestic barley itself dates back to 8500BC. Indications of some form of barley beer to the Neolithic (10,200 to 2000 BC). And indications of the Mesopotamian Egypt learning the benifits of malting by accident 6000 years ago.

Like I've said before just because they did not understand the why, does not mean they could not produce or even reproduce the how.

But then again, we can either check our facts, or just spout off what comes to mind, right?

 

[ericbw]

You give the people of the last 1000 years so very little credit as to their ability. And yet, they accomplished feats we would not dream of attempting today. And it is asinine to think that barley, water, yeast, and herbs were so vastly different then than now.

The facts are that beer has ALWAYS been made by steeping mixtures malted barley of varied degree of roast to a point where it creates a syrupy, sugary, soup. And then it is cooled and innoculated either by dropping in the magic beer stick or by a packet of nottingham. Then it is left to sit till it goes foamy and then not. Then it is stored until ready to consume.

The fact is that if the beer was bad, then it would not have become the staple that it had become because there were other options like wine, milk, and fruit juices. It was not simply the only option to water. It was simply the preferred option by many.

What exactly is so special about Crystal malt that you are convinced it was not possible to make 300 year ago? the fact is, nothing. It's green malt, stewed and roasted to a desired doneness. The only part of crystal that is substantial about the patent of it is it specifications of temperature and lovibond. Important for consistent recreation but not imperative. Hell, you can even make the sh!t at home in your oven.

The facts is that brewers today are so anal retentitively caught in the specifics of lovibond, diastatic power, potential yield, percent alpha, and degrees fareighnheit constants that it's MORE amazing that anyone here can produce something drinkable much less appreciable. yet, we are still able to toss our foaming buckets in a closet and result ourselves in crystal clean malty, hoppy goodness.

No need to be rude about it. My point is that raw materials do change over time and preferences change over time.

I keep wanting to write this long response, but it boils down to this: there are new varieties of hops and barley all the time. Those change the finished product. Grain is different today than it was in 400 BC. New hops are introduced, so they're different. And they weren't even used for thousands of years. The use of hops and sanitation affects the fermentation and keeps bacteria at bay.

Tastes change, so what people liked thousands of years ago was possibly different. It was different 50, 100, 200 years ago, too. That's why in the 1950s, American beer was very limited to a few styles. It was after that when people developed a taste for hyper-hopped beer.

So 1000s of years ago, beer might have been drier and tasted more of the grain (which might have been inconsistently malted). It might have been flavored with flowers and herbs, but not hops.

More importantly, you seem to forget that preservation like refrigeration is a modern invention. Meat was cured, milk was turned into cheese, fruit became wine or dried fruit. beer was another way of preserving and using the harvest later. But I don't think that in 400 BC, people were putting milk on their Fruity Pebbles or mixing up a glass of Quik.

I may sound asinine, but my point is only that beer today is different, partly because of different ingredients and partly because of tastes, and partly because of process (sanitation, temp control). I didn't say beer was bad in the past, but I think our tastes might be different now.

 

[Calichusetts]

If someone just read the first post in this and then the last page...

 

[ericbw]

Or in your case, stare at all your empty shiny equipment in your garage and attic.



No one is saying that. What we're saying is it's an asinine assupmtion that if presented with a SNPA and warm, uncarbed, likely slightly soured, ale; the people of that time would automatically choose the beer we have today because it's "better."

Honestly, there is no such thing as "better" beer.

I'm saying the opposite. I think William Shakespeare or William Blake (both referenced earlier as giving props to ale) might find SNPA disagreeable because of the hop aroma, when they were likely used to more malt-driven ales. I suspect that Blake would have had more exposure to more hops because he lived later (and hops didn't become a part of English brewing until later).

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

No need to be rude about it. My point is that raw materials do change over time and preferences change over time.

I keep wanting to write this long response, but it boils down to this: there are new varieties of hops and barley all the time. Those change the finished product. Grain is different today than it was in 400 BC. New hops are introduced, so they're different. And they weren't even used for thousands of years. The use of hops and sanitation affects the fermentation and keeps bacteria at bay.

Tastes change, so what people liked thousands of years ago was possibly different. It was different 50, 100, 200 years ago, too. That's why in the 1950s, American beer was very limited to a few styles. It was after that when people developed a taste for hyper-hopped beer.

So 1000s of years ago, beer might have been drier and tasted more of the grain (which might have been inconsistently malted). It might have been flavored with flowers and herbs, but not hops.

More importantly, you seem to forget that preservation like refrigeration is a modern invention. Meat was cured, milk was turned into cheese, fruit became wine or dried fruit. beer was another way of preserving and using the harvest later. But I don't think that in 400 BC, people were putting milk on their Fruity Pebbles or mixing up a glass of Quik.

I may sound asinine, but my point is only that beer today is different, partly because of different ingredients and partly because of tastes, and partly because of process (sanitation, temp control). I didn't say beer was bad in the past, but I think our tastes might be different now.

I have never been rude, just succinct as possible. If you find that rude, not my issue.

I was prepared to write out this long response but, it is obvious you have not read what has already been written.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

I'm saying the opposite. I think William Shakespeare or William Blake (both referenced earlier as giving props to ale) might find SNPA disagreeable because of the hop aroma, when they were likely used to more malt-driven ales. I suspect that Blake would have had more exposure to more hops because he lived later (and hops didn't become a part of English brewing until later).

+1 to this. But I was not even going there. Just saying that whatever style of beer it may have been back then, I assert that it was every bit as drinkable, enjoyable, and revered as it would be today. Be it a mild, a heather ale, etc... and the base process of making said beer is the same today as it has always been. And the trials of making a good beer the same as it is today (just read the begginers section) although a "tub dumper" was more tragic then than it is today. Still doesn't mean they drank it anyway.

 

[ericbw]

While I think the process is what's changed the most, the ingredients and their preparation/modification are totally different. There were no malting companies. For brewing grain to be viable for conversion it was almost by chance. The water they used in the middle ages was the same water that the public couldn't drink.

It wasn't until the 19th century that brewers even knew yeast existed, so clearly the yeast handling, pitching rates etc were less then ideal prior to that. So much has changed. Asinine is just a really strong word when there was so much so blatantly different between "then" and now.

None of this is about not giving credit to the first brewers..it's about giving credit to technological advances that have allowed even us homebrewers to go from producing poor quality, often barely drinkable beer 30 years ago, to being able to rival the best beers in the world now.

Much of that change is change in ingredient quality, handling. If we can see advances in our lifetimes to the degree we have in beer quality produced by homebrewers it's certainly not asinine to deduce that the beer quality 1000 years ago was not at the level it is now.

I say all this fully acknowledging that maybe there was some sort of devolution in the craft between 1000 years ago and 30 years, ago, but to me, that's not intuitive. It's a logical leap.

Just my $.02 and all IMHO.

Even though everyone jumped on you because you don't know the exact history of barley malting, you're pretty much correct. Yeast is an interesting part of it, which really was accidental for most of the time.

A lot of it is probably semi-accidental selection. A brewer makes a beer and gets a good result, so he does those things again. He gets a bad result and doesn't do those things. Over time, the good beer practices get selected in and the bad get selected out. That's probably especially true with yeast. A brewer makes a good batch with certain gear, so he uses it again. And again. And eventually the desirable yeast is the strongest.

So his friend uses his equipment, gets good results and transfers some of the good mojo (I mean yeast) to other equipment. Now he makes good beer.

And that was before they knew about yeast.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Even though everyone jumped on you because you don't know the exact history of barley malting, you're pretty much correct. Yeast is an interesting part of it, which really was accidental for most of the time.

A lot of it is probably semi-accidental selection. A brewer makes a beer and gets a good result, so he does those things again. He gets a bad result and doesn't do those things. Over time, the good beer practices get selected in and the bad get selected out. That's probably especially true with yeast. A brewer makes a good batch with certain gear, so he uses it again. And again. And eventually the desirable yeast is the strongest.

So his friend uses his equipment, gets good results and transfers some of the good mojo (I mean yeast) to other equipment. Now he makes good beer.

And that was before they knew about yeast.

Now you've got it.

 

[ericbw]

+1 to this. But I was not even going there. Just saying that whatever style of beer it may have been back then, I assert that it was every bit as drinkable, enjoyable, and revered as it would be today. Be it a mild, a heather ale, etc... and the base process of making said beer is the same today as it has always been.

Right - to those people. But to modern people trying to make "good beer," sanitation is critical. So bringing it back to the OP (who, let's face it, is just a means for us to get into meaningless talk about other things), his friends might be making crappy beer by today's standards because of their poor practices.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Right - to those people.

No. Even to those of us today who can appreciate something that does not have 90IBU. I love mild's. Real Ale has a pretty devout following. Have you ever had the pleasure? It's wonderful.

But to modern people trying to make "good beer," sanitation is critical.

Aside from the magic beer stick, who says sanitation wasn't critical to them? Our current methods are certainly more convienient but they did still have ways to clean and sanitize. They have gone through all the rigours to make this beer, what makes you think they didn't clean up afterwards?

 

[ericbw]

Aside from the magic beer stick, who says sanitation wasn't critical to them? Our current methods are certainly more convienient but they did still have ways to clean and sanitize.

There wasn't a very good understanding of "germs" or sanitation before Louis Pasteur. It wasn't until the 1800s that doctors washed their hands before surgery or delivering babies. Or between delivering a baby and eating a sandwich. I don't imagine they sanitized their beer equipment very well and nothing else.

Sanitation is a pretty new idea.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

There wasn't a very good understanding of "germs" or sanitation before Louis Pasteur. It wasn't until the 1800s that doctors washed their hands before surgery or delivering babies. Or between delivering a baby and eating a sandwich. I don't imagine they sanitized their beer equipment very well and nothing else.

Sanitation is a pretty new idea.

Understanding germs is one thing. Cleaning the crud out is another. Perhaps you are right. But, I suspect there were some logical conclusion toward sanitation alongside the same progression you illustrated regarding process. Sanitation for them "could" have been as simple as turning the pot over the fire to dry, etc... Cleanliness has always been revered as being next to godliness. Although perhaps not practiced quite as religiously as it should have been.

 

[ericbw]

I have never been rude, just succinct as possible. If you find that rude, not my issue.

I was prepared to write out this long response but, it is obvious you have not read what has already been written.

I was writing this while others were as well.

You said, "It is asinine to think..." which is not succinct, but it is rude. But that is not your issue.

 

[ericbw]

Now you've got it.

I had it from the beginning. And by your previous comments, a "tub dumper" was more tragic, which doesn't mean they didn't drink it. So they probably drank more "tub dumpers" back in the day... meaning more bad beer even by their own standards. So they had the same high regard for beer, but drank crappy beer if they had to. Which is kinda what others have said (not me), and kinda what you've been arguing against.

 

[bob1852]

So we've concluded that crappy beer existed back then and crappy beer exists today. Ergo, nothing has changed.

 

[ericbw]

Understanding germs is one thing. Cleaning the crud out is another. Perhaps you are right. But, I suspect there were some logical conclusion toward sanitation alongside the same progression you illustrated regarding process. Sanitation for them "could" have been as simple as turning the pot over the fire to dry, etc... Cleanliness has always been revered as being next to godliness. Although perhaps not practiced quite as religiously as it should have been.

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.

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.

 

[TobyG]

I had it from the beginning. And by your previous comments, a "tub dumper" was more tragic, which doesn't mean they didn't drink it. So they probably drank more "tub dumpers" back in the day... meaning more bad beer even by their own standards. So they had the same high regard for beer, but drank crappy beer if they had to. Which is kinda what others have said (not me), and kinda what you've been arguing against.

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.

 

[boydster]

So we've concluded that crappy beer existed back then and crappy beer exists today. Ergo, nothing has changed.

^I nominate this for 6 internets.^

Regarding the OP... I would uninvite myself to a brew day where this conversation was taking place. A lot has been said about how good or bad beer tasted hundreds or thousands of years ago... Did someone unearth an ancient diary with BJCP-style notes critiquing the ales of the day? No?? A lot of strong opinions seem to be based on a lot of assumptions here.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

I was writing this while others were as well.

You said, "It is asinine to think..." which is not succinct, but it is rude. But that is not your issue.

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.

I had it from the beginning. And by your previous comments, a "tub dumper" was more tragic, which doesn't mean they didn't drink it. So they probably drank more "tub dumpers" back in the day... meaning more bad beer even by their own standards. So they had the same high regard for beer, but drank crappy beer if they had to. Which is kinda what others have said (not me), and kinda what you've been arguing against.

Again, no. a tub dumper being more tragic then means you don't play with or screw up a recipe because then you have to start back over with malting, etc...