Reasons to go all grain vs extract??

[SteveHeff]

Geez, I guess I'm one of the few people that has made the jump back from all grain to extract. It's a huge time commitment issue, as well as cleanup process in all grain. Since I have a young son, who gets into EVERYTHING, going extract is a huge plus. I still make very good beer without time additional time commitment and cleanup that all grain offers. I will continue to make all grain beer, but I'll probably save that for 1-2 times a year when I have a toddler free day. Until then, I will continue my extract brewing.

 

[Brewmasher]

I totally understand the allure of AG. But is water chemistry much fun in itself or is it just one of those dull but necessary tasks to make your beer better?

You can brew as simple or complicated as you want. It is not your job to make beer (at least for most). It should be an enjoyable, rewarding activity. When you start to dread brew day, it's time to find a new hobby. Some people like to experiment with water profiles to replicate beers from a certain region, or just to see what kind of effect it has on the beer. I tried it a couple of times, but it's not my thing. Truth is you can brew really good beer without having to analyze every aspect along the way. But if that's what you like to do, more power to you. Really all you need to make beer is a big kettle, some sort of strainer to separate the grains from the wort, a thermometer, a controllable heat source, and a means to package and serve the final product. You can also run a marathon barefoot, but it would be a lot more fun with a $100 pair if Nikes.

I don't think my LHBS would allow me to buy a 50-pound bag of 2-row and then measure out 10 pounds at a time, bring 10-pounds up there and them have them grind it for me, but maybe I should look into that...

Mine does. I buy 2 row and maybe wheat malt in bulk, grind what I need, and take the rest home. Next batch, I weigh out what I need, take it up there and grind it. I almost always have to get specialty grains, yeast, hops (by the Lb) or whatever, so even though they would make more money if I bought by the Lb or if I had to buy a grinder, I keeps me loyal to their shop. They will grind it for you, or let you grind it yourself the way you want it.

 

[mongoose33]

Yes, Yooper - those are great savings, which is why I wrote this originally, "One thing I'm not sold on is that all-grain is "much cheaper" than extract. It might be true if you're buying grains in bulk, but if you shop online vendors (NB, AIH, etc.) and look at a kit in both all-grain and extract versions, you'll see about a $2 difference/kit."

The reason I don't go that route is because I don't have my own grain mill and I'm not brewing all-grain enough to justify the cost of one, even though I know LONG TERM it would make up for itself cost wise. I don't think my LHBS would allow me to buy a 50-pound bag of 2-row and then measure out 10 pounds at a time, bring 10-pounds up there and them have them grind it for me, but maybe I should look into that...

I do reuse yeast a fair amount, however. The only issue I have with that is that I like to brew such a variety of styles I have a hard time using the same yeast strain more than once in a six-month window besides maybe Safale 05. That's my time limit for reusing yeast, though I know others have used harvested yeast much older. In fact, the other day I just dumped out a bunch of old mason jars simply because I know I won't be brewing certain styles the rest of the year.

I figure I'll recoup the cost savings of .brewing equpiment, mill, kegs, keezer, beer line cleaner, etc. etc. and the associated other stuff in about...2023. Maybe.

[Sudden thought: if you're doing a hobby to save money, it's not a hobby. It's like clipping coupons. Saving money is just a side benefit of doing things a certain way.]

While I suppose a few people might brew because they save money, and that's the overriding reason they do so, I'll bet most brew because they like the process, they like being able to be in control of what they brew and drink, they like the challenge of trying to match styles or produce award-winning beer, and they like producing beer that is equal to or better than store-bought.

How long will it take to pay off my mill? I have, IIRC, $139 in it. I'm getting Maris Otter at 98 cents a pound in a 55-pound sack, and 2-row at 76 cents a pound in a 50 pound sack. Most hops are less than $2/ounce at ritebrew, and bought in 1-pound increments, many are below $1 an ounce, and all are below $2 an ounce.

I just had a keg of a SMASH I brewed kick off. In that I had 11 pounds of Maris Otter ($10.78), three ounces of East Kent Goldings ($6.57), and a packet of S-04 (2.89). Including a dollar for PBW to clean up, and 50 cents for Star-San, that brew is at $21.74. Five gallons worth, 50 bottles worth, at 42 cents per bottle equivalent.

To do this with extract, I'd have to double the cost. Northern Brewer has MO extract for $19.99. It's not quite enough to match the 11 pounds of grain, so we're effectively double in cost. Call it a savings of $11.

After about 12 brews, I'll have saved enough using all-grain to pay off the mill. I'm not using all-grain to save money--that's just a side benefit. I'm using it because, for me, it's produced better beer than the extract brews I did. Maybe I could learn to do extract better, but this all-grain beer is so good that I don't know that I want to do those experiments. Besides, switching back to extract will....cost more!

As Yooper and others have said, if a brewer is happy with what they're getting, then they probably should think twice about changing. In the end, everybody makes their own choices, based on their own values, resources, and information. That's one thing that's great about this--you can do whatever you want, and you don't have to defend it to anybody, other than yourself.

 

[ericbw]

Here'whileback, I made some 'beer' by using birch (Betula nana) sap. It occurred to me after a couple of batches of extract-derived beers that "extract" was just "syrup", and I had a ready and interesting source of syrup/"extract" in all the birch trees on my property. (FYI, it takes about 50 gallons of maple sap to make a gallon of maple syrup, while it takes about 100 gallons of birch sap to make on gallon of birch syrup.) That was the best 5 gallons of beer I have ever made, but MAN! that was A LOT OF WORK! I was married to that thing for about a week!

So here's my question: Was that "pop tart" beer because it was made from "extract", or was it "artisan" beer because I had to work so hard at it? (Maybe it wasn't even beer!)

Paul

It's definitely artisan, but not beer because it wasn't made from grain at all. I'm not sure what it is. Wine and cider are fruit. Mead is honey. Beer is grain.

What does it taste like?

 

[gitano]

Yeah, I've read all those 'definitions'. As a general rule they seem pretty useful, but as with all definitions, there is always an exception somewhere. Fermented tree sap... whaduhyuhcallit? I am not any sort of fermentation historian, so I have no idea if there isn't some name for this fermented beverage hidden in the annals of fermentation.

I have always found "taste" difficult to describe. I can repeat that it was the best "beer" that I may have ever had, but since what I like in beer coincides with what VERY few other people like in beer, my "best" is most certainly subjective. Here are some adjectives and descriptive phrases that are fairly objective:
1) Dark - VERY dark,
2) Thick - don't recall a thicker commercially available beer,
3) Sweet - Not as sweet as 'malzbier', but sweeter than any commercially available beer with which I am familiar,
4) VERY little hop flavor - I hate the bitterness of hops and added very little. Just enough to satisfy my "hop-happy" friends that it was actually "beer".
5) It tastes good to me whether consumed cold or at ambient temperature.
6) ABV was about 9%.

On the hop note; birch sap (and I assume maple sap) is very much 'alive'. If one leaves a one gallon container open at room temperature overnight, there will be 'growth' on the surface the next morning. (One year I tried to save it for 'watering' my chicken hatchlings. Couldn't keep it even in the refer for longer than about 3 or 4 days.) Therefore, the use of hops, as an antibiotic, not a flavoring - is reasonable when using birch sap. However, as I said, I used very little hops and I had no issues with spoiling.

I think anyone interested in making fermented tree sap beverage, should simply consider the sap as "extract" and work your recipes from that point forward. I have no opinions about what might be "right" or "wrong" or "good" or "bad". I make fermented drinks so that I can get what I WANT in a beverage, NOT what someone else thinks is "good" or "right". My opinion is that if you like the result, it is "good", regardless of the process or materials used.

On the "use as extract" note: Sometimes I get a bit of tunnel vision when I set out to plow my own furrow. Such was the case when I made this 'stuff'. I was planning on boiling down hundreds of gallons of sap in order to get "extract". About 80 gallons 'into it' it dawned on me as I considered "next steps", that what I was thinking of doing (boiling it down to "extract" then adding back in the appropriate amount of water), was ridiculous. I was boiling OFF THE WATER THEN ADDING IT BACK IN! That's nuts! So I just started monitoring the specific gravity of the "boil-down" and when it reached about 1.040 (if I remember correctly), I started "making beer". My point is: I didn't add any "water". What liquid there was to the wort was 100% sap.

I apologize for getting off-topic. I did in fact consider starting a new thread, but I didn't think this diversion really warranted its own thread, as I have almost completely exhausted the "knowledge" I have on the subject of birch sap 'beer'.

Paul

 

[jerbrew]

I'm not going to comment on your entire post but I'd like to point out one thing. Hops were most definitely used first and foremost as a flavoring. Any antimicrobial effects derived from the use of hops in beer was a side effect since the original use of hops was at a time when microbes were not "known". That being said, they may have noticed that hopped beers lasted longer but that doesn't mean they were used exclusively because of it.

You did capture exactly what I think the spirit of booze making is. You took some of your base knowledge and solved a problem. You managed to preserve a product that would otherwise spoil. Congrats, and FWIW you can call it whatever the hell you want.

 

[gitano]

Your point about when beer was first brewed and the timing of the knowledge of microbes, is well-taken, jerbrew. I got a little too enthusiastic because the primary reason I don't like most beers is because of the bitterness induced by adding hops. I shouldn't have been so adamant in my assertion of its original use, especially since I 'wasn't there'. I was simply repeating what I have read in SO many places (not on the internet). I will let those that assert that they know what the intended use of hops in beer brewing argue the 'antibiotic' point one way or the other. In spite of my emphasis in my previous post, I truly don't have a dog in that fight.

Paul

 

[55x11]

Yes, Yooper - those are great savings, which is why I wrote this originally, "One thing I'm not sold on is that all-grain is "much cheaper" than extract. It might be true if you're buying grains in bulk, but if you shop online vendors (NB, AIH, etc.) and look at a kit in both all-grain and extract versions, you'll see about a $2 difference/kit."

The reason I don't go that route is because I don't have my own grain mill and I'm not brewing all-grain enough to justify the cost of one, even though I know LONG TERM it would make up for itself cost wise. I don't think my LHBS would allow me to buy a 50-pound bag of 2-row and then measure out 10 pounds at a time, bring 10-pounds up there and them have them grind it for me, but maybe I should look into that...

I do reuse yeast a fair amount, however. The only issue I have with that is that I like to brew such a variety of styles I have a hard time using the same yeast strain more than once in a six-month window besides maybe Safale 05. That's my time limit for reusing yeast, though I know others have used harvested yeast much older. In fact, the other day I just dumped out a bunch of old mason jars simply because I know I won't be brewing certain styles the rest of the year.

I have never owned (and do not currently own) a mill. But for me, shopping at my LHBS, the savings of all-grain vs. extract is about a factor of 2.5-3.
I can buy a 50lb bag of US 2-row for $40 and mill it right there in the store. Or I could pay $1 per lb if I buy in smaller amounts. Vs. $13.99 for 3-lb of DME (and yes, LME may be cheaper online somewhere but what do I do with a half-full of sticky mess once I open a can?). YMMV.

But let's forget about the cost. Let's just stipulate that all-grain will ALWAYS be cheaper than extract. Maybe by a factor of 1.5, maybe by a factor of 3. Who cares?

(By the way if you are buying the kits, as I described above, you can lower your grain cost by a factor of 2 at least - AND have flexibility of your own recipe design - the all-grain kit recipe is a bit ridiculous because you are giving the power over your recipe to someone else - I would argue that even extract recipe you designed is more "yours" than an all-grain recipe someone else designed and pre-packaged for you, with detailed instructions to follow - sorry but the kit approach was never for me, I brewed exactly one kit beer, my first and only beer from the kit - and I prefer designing my own beers and making my own mistakes).

The #1 advantage of all-grain is control over the process/recipe. If you want full control and full ability to fine-tune your beer to get exactly what you want - you need to go all-grain. You just can't get this with extract - you will always be locked into compromises that may work sometimes, but generally won't produce the best beer.

Freshness of extract, control over mash temperature, darkness of extract, the fact that extract vacuum process removes a lot of flavors (according to Randy Mosher who is a world expert on taste and beer design) - those are additional reasons to go with all-grain if you care about designing and making your best beer.

Cost is just a nice side-bonus. Instead of 25-50 cent per pint for ingredients for my all-grain beers, I would be paying 75 cent to $2 per pint with all-grain. My time is the biggest expense so I may not care about the difference in price, but some of you may.

 

[catdaddy66]

Yes, Yooper - those are great savings, which is why I wrote this originally, "One thing I'm not sold on is that all-grain is "much cheaper" than extract. It might be true if you're buying grains in bulk, but if you shop online vendors (NB, AIH, etc.) and look at a kit in both all-grain and extract versions, you'll see about a $2 difference/kit."

The reason I don't go that route is because I don't have my own grain mill and I'm not brewing all-grain enough to justify the cost of one, even though I know LONG TERM it would make up for itself cost wise. I don't think my LHBS would allow me to buy a 50-pound bag of 2-row and then measure out 10 pounds at a time, bring 10-pounds up there and them have them grind it for me, but maybe I should look into that...

I do reuse yeast a fair amount, however. The only issue I have with that is that I like to brew such a variety of styles I have a hard time using the same yeast strain more than once in a six-month window besides maybe Safale 05. That's my time limit for reusing yeast, though I know others have used harvested yeast much older. In fact, the other day I just dumped out a bunch of old mason jars simply because I know I won't be brewing certain styles the rest of the year.

My lhbs lets me do exactly that. Super nice guy who has also said I could use his ferm chamber whenever needed ( for lagers). Get to know your local owners and you may be surprised what they offer for amenities to keep customers loyal.

 

[derekcw83]

To the OP,
the obvious things have been mentioned, better quality, more accuracy, more fine tuning flavors and such. I went all grain about 6 months ago, I'm never looking back.

My biggest issue was extract twang. Could have been many issues combined, but guaranteed I've gotten better attenuation from all grain. And it's proven that extract adds undesirable compounds and if not absolutely fresh, changes over a short time, and color which someone mentioned, and oxidation also occurs I believe over time.

 

[schematix]

In a choice between making extract beer or only buying beer, i'd only buy beer. Hell it costs about as much.

 

[ericbw]

To the OP,
the obvious things have been mentioned, better quality, more accuracy, more fine tuning flavors and such. I went all grain about 6 months ago, I'm never looking back.

My biggest issue was extract twang. Could have been many issues combined, but guaranteed I've gotten better attenuation from all grain. And it's proven that extract adds undesirable compounds and if not absolutely fresh, changes over a short time, and color which someone mentioned, and oxidation also occurs I believe over time.

I wondered when someone would mention the dreaded "extract twang!" We had such a good thing going.

I made a delicious extract patersbier, and an excellent extract summer ale (everyone likes these - it's pure luck, but it's not Ugly Baby Syndrome!). Then I followed up with an extract with steeped Crystal 20. This one has a certain under-attenuated Homebrew flavor to it. It's barely ok, but not good.

I blame stale crystal malt and too much of it. Old ingredients and a bad recipe (my own). The extracts were way better.

I mostly do all grain and like the results better. I do think you can get better attenuation with grain. But i don't think it's so cut and dried.

Can you point me to where it's proven that extract adds undesireable compounds? Not trying to start an argument, just curious.

 

[gitano]

Can you point me to where it's proven that extract adds undesireable compounds?

Me too.

Paul

 

[55x11]

Me too.

Paul

Perhaps not really direct response to your question, but to quote the experts:

"Malt extracts differ greatly in their fermentability, making the beers sweeter or drier, and this information about specific brands may be hard to come by. There are also issues of freshness, especially with the syrup form. Because malt extract is a highly concentrated mix of water, sugar, and protein, it has all the elements necessary for a Maillard browning reaction, even at room temperature, which can result in beer with an unpleasant lingering flavor that my colleagues in Chicago refer to as “ball-point pen” flavor. The term “cidery” is also sometimes used in this context. This browning reaction causes malt extract to darken as it ages, and also during manufacture, so it is often nigh impossible to brew an extremely pale beer, like a German-style Pilsner, with liquid extracts. Spray-dried extracts have a bit better track record for becoming stale and darkening, but they are not immune.

Freshness matters, so find out which malt extract brands sell the fastest at your supplier, and stick to those. Also, because extracts have been vacuum-concentrated, huge volumes of liquid have been forcibly removed from the wort to thicken it for packaging. And guess what? Along with the water, much of that beautiful malt aroma has been sucked out of the extract as well. As a result, beers made only from malt extract can taste rather lifeless and dull when it comes to the malt side."

Mosher, Randy (2015-02-10). Mastering Homebrew: The Complete Guide to Brewing Delicious Beer (Kindle Locations 1779-1789). Chronicle Books LLC. Kindle Edition.

 

[gitano]

Good info, but I didn't see anything about manufacturers adding "undesirable compounds" to the extract.

To tell the truth, I had about the same attitude about AG brewing as most AG brewers have about extract brews before reading this thread. Just as honestly, I am not yet convinced that I need to go AG, but my curiosity has been sufficiently piqued that I will look into it more.

The bottom line for me is that I do not have a particularly 'discriminating' palate. I like thick, sweet, dark beer. It's not really more complicated than that for me. If using grain makes it easier to get "thick, sweet, dark beer", then "By gum, hang the cost! I'm 'in' for AG!"

Paul

 

[mongoose33]

Can you point me to where it's proven that extract adds undesireable compounds? Not trying to start an argument, just curious.

I cannot. But what I suspect happens is that some extract is either badly produced or otherwise out of date freshness-wise. My extract brews had....something....that I don't see in all-grain.

Is that an indictment of all extract brewing? Heaven's no! There's a guy in my local homebrew club who brews exclusively extract, and he wins throwdowns all the time. I'm going to ask if he'd let me watch him brew one day--I want to find out what he's doing.

I cannot say that all extract brews have a "twang." I don't even believe it. I just wish I knew why some have that thing I identify as "twang" and some do not.

 

[gitano]

I just wish I knew why some have that thing I identify as "twang" and some do not.

Is the kind of thing that provokes me to do strange things...

I just blame 'off' flavors in my brews on 'operator error'.

Paul

 

[55x11]

Good info, but I didn't see anything about manufacturers adding "undesirable compounds" to the extract.

To tell the truth, I had about the same attitude about AG brewing as most AG brewers have about extract brews before reading this thread. Just as honestly, I am not yet convinced that I need to go AG, but my curiosity has been sufficiently piqued that I will look into it more.

The bottom line for me is that I do not have a particularly 'discriminating' palate. I like thick, sweet, dark beer. It's not really more complicated than that for me. If using grain makes it easier to get "thick, sweet, dark beer", then "By gum, hang the cost! I'm 'in' for AG!"

Paul

Not sure who claimed in this thread that "manufacturers adding "undesirable compounds", but if you read above summary by Mosher, again, then yes, unintentionally, they do. They don't do it on purpose, like adding cyanide to extract just for fun - but it happens as a result of the process, in their desire to cut some corners.

If you like sticky, sweet, dark (and may I add - sub-par beers and lack of control in your brewing), I think we can all agree the question to "Reasons to go all grain vs extract??" is a resounding "No, you should keep brewing extract". Just remember that you could be making better tasting beer, but choose not to.

Sorry if I sound elitist. If you said you really really want to save some time on the brew day, I would be ok with it. But aspiring to a superior tasting product is something we homebrewers should all be for.

 

[mongoose33]

.

 

[gitano]

Somehow... after

(and may I add - sub-par beers and lack of control in your brewing)

and

Just remember that you could be making better tasting beer, but choose not to.

I don't believe that you are the least bit "sorry" for "sounding" elitist.

But aspiring to a superior tasting product is something we home brewers should all be for.

So... In order to be a "good home brewer" I need to have your elitist taste buds, and aspire to your brewing goals. I'll give that personal opinion all the consideration it deserves.

Paul

 

[eadavis80]

My lhbs lets me do exactly that. Super nice guy who has also said I could use his ferm chamber whenever needed ( for lagers). Get to know your local owners and you may be surprised what they offer for amenities to keep customers loyal.

Well, I guess there would be no harm in asking him...

 

[ericbw]

Sticky, sweet, dark beer is bad? Like a wee heavy or something?

Even some pales or west coast Amber/red can be thick and sweet.

Not sure how that translates to sub-par.

 

[derekcw83]

www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=32621

 

[Morrey]

You've gotten some really great advice here on this thread. Voices of experience.

I enjoy the same beer German/Pilsner/Hefe/Wit styles you do. Extract ALWAYS ends up darker than I want. Always. A good light SRM beer of 3 or 3.5 is darn hard to get from a boxed cake mix.....that's my word for DME. The "extract twang"...cant stand it, detect it a mile away.

So you may want to try BIAB which is the best AG gateway since you can function in a single kettle. Easy peasy. Rewarding

With AG, you'll find a recipe and next batch you want to try a little more of this or a little less of that. With extract you are boxed in. Darn, there goes my reference to boxed cake mixes again.

To all the die hard extract brewers out there I offer my sincerest apologies.

 

[Morrey]

I started all-grain a few years ago. Had to quit because of back trouble - the longer brew days were too much. But my biggest concern while I was doing all-grain was the grain storage. Even in Zip-Locks inside a bin, I could still smell the grain. I worried that it would attract mice or roaches. Has anybody had a problem with this?

I bought several of those 5G food grade buckets at Lowes Home Improvement. They also have gamma lids to fit and this makes a great system for storing. Mice are held at bay and I haven't seen grain weevils as I think the air seal must keep them from hatching.

 

[gitano]

With regard to "extract twang", personal tastes, and taste in general:

I used to teach "baby bio" (first semester biology) at KU, and most of the students in the class weren't biology majors. Most were simply trying to satisfy the General Education Requirement of a "science" for their bachelor's degrees. I wasn't interested in trying to make them into "scientists". BUT... I did want to pass on to them a few things about science in general and biology in particular that they could use throughout their lives. One of the demonstrations I would conduct was directed at showing how genetic differences can manifest themselves physically. In other words, "see" genetics. Most of 'you' have at one point or another in school talked about "free" earlobes vs "attached" earlobes, or "hitch-hikers thumb". Some may have even taken a "taster" vs "non-taster" test.

For those unfamiliar with this particular example of different sensory abilities that are genetically determined, it is very simple: Cardboard strips are soaked in a chemical called phenylthiocarbamide, or PTC for short. That cardboard strip (about the sized of a paper matchstick), is placed on the tongue. While there are a few people that just have some taste, most folks fall into one of two groups: the "THAT TASTES LIKE HELL!" group, or the "I can't taste a thing but cardboard" group. It's an interesting classroom demonstration because the response of the "tasters" is usually highly entertaining.

Since most of my pupils were just coming to the reproductive part of their lives, after the test showed who was and wasn't a "taster", I would say the following: "So for those of you that can't taste anything but cardboard, remember this exercise when you put some food in your baby's mouth and they spit it violently in your face. It probably tastes significantly different to them than it does to you."

And so it is with beer. And Wine. And a whole slew of different things we put in our mouths. "Twangers" and "non-Twangers" alike might do well to keep that in mind as they consider asserting the "rightness" or "wrongness" of someone else's gustatory preferences. As it turns out, I am what is referred to (since about 1990), a "supertaster". I have LOTS of "bitter" taste buds, and few "sweet" taste buds. That means that I am very sensitive to (HATE) bitter, and am relatively insensitive to (LOVE) "sweet". That in turn means I don't like the taste of hops, and like my drinks sweeter 'than the average bear'. I'm too old to give a tinker's damn what someone else thinks about my preferences in the taste of beer, (or anything else for that matter), but keeping in mind that other folks may actually taste things DIFFERENTLY as a result of their BIOLOGY, might prevent a stupid internet argument or two. (My hopes are actually pretty low in that regard, though.)

Here's a reasonably good read on the subject of "tasters and non-tasters". http://www.livescience.com/17190-supertaster-nontaster-tongue-evolution.html

Paul

PS - I "searched" (not exhaustively) for threads on this subject, but did not find any. If I missed them, and this subject has been covered ad nauseam, my apologies.

 

[Morrey]

With regard to "extract twang", personal tastes, and taste in general:

I used to teach "baby bio" (first semester biology) at KU, and most of the students in the class weren't biology majors. Most were simply trying to satisfy the General Education Requirement of a "science" for their bachelor's degrees. I wasn't interested in trying to make them into "scientists". BUT... I did want to pass on to them a few things about science in general and biology in particular that they could use throughout their lives. One of the demonstrations I would conduct was directed at showing how genetic differences can manifest themselves physically. In other words, "see" genetics. Most of 'you' have at one point or another in school talked about "free" earlobes vs "attached" earlobes, or "hitch-hikers thumb". Some may have even taken a "taster" vs "non-taster" test.

For those unfamiliar with this particular example of different sensory abilities that are genetically determined, it is very simple: Cardboard strips are soaked in a chemical called phenylthiocarbamide, or PTC for short. That cardboard strip (about the sized of a paper matchstick), is placed on the tongue. While there are a few people that just have some taste, most folks fall into one of two groups: the "THAT TASTES LIKE HELL!" group, or the "I can't taste a thing but cardboard" group. It's an interesting classroom demonstration because the response of the "tasters" is usually highly entertaining.

Since most of my pupils were just coming to the reproductive part of their lives, after the test showed who was and wasn't a "taster", I would say the following: "So for those of you that can't taste anything but cardboard, remember this exercise when you put some food in your baby's mouth and they spit it violently in your face. It probably tastes significantly different to them than it does to you."

And so it is with beer. And Wine. And a whole slew of different things we put in our mouths. "Twangers" and "non-Twangers" alike might do well to keep that in mind as they consider asserting the "rightness" or "wrongness" of someone else's gustatory preferences. As it turns out, I am what is referred to (since about 1990), a "supertaster". I have LOTS of "bitter" taste buds, and few "sweet" taste buds. That means that I am very sensitive to (HATE) bitter, and am relatively insensitive to (LOVE) "sweet". That in turn means I don't like the taste of hops, and like my drinks sweeter 'than the average bear'. I'm too old to give a tinker's damn what someone else thinks about my preferences in the taste of beer, (or anything else for that matter), but keeping in mind that other folks may actually taste things DIFFERENTLY as a result of their BIOLOGY, might prevent a stupid internet argument or two. (My hopes are actually pretty low in that regard, though.)

Here's a reasonably good read on the subject of "tasters and non-tasters". http://www.livescience.com/17190-supertaster-nontaster-tongue-evolution.html

Paul

PS - I "searched" (not exhaustively) for threads on this subject, but did not find any. If I missed them, and this subject has been covered ad nauseam, my apologies.

Paul, I cant agree more with your writings! You are well beyond my thinking process. I suppose I perceive extract twang opposed to others that may not taste it at all. Right you are sir.

And I should know this from BBQ judging and teaching judging classes. Some folks have higher thresholds and don't perceive samples as salty as an example, while another subset of judges scores the sample as well salted or even over salted. The examples continue on and on with various flavors and spices.

With this all said, at least the OP will be aware that some opinions vary, and if his palate perceives the twang, he will be aware of that.

 

[brewprint]

I'm a fairly novice brewer of German wheat beers/weizens. Done about 20 5-gal extract brews so far, and pretty happy with results. A friend promoted going all grain as better somehow, but without quite explaining why, I think a notion of being more "purist" or something like that. I assume there must be other reasons that so many do it. I'd love to know what they are? I see lots of threads on how but not on why. I'd certainly go that route if the reasons are good ones....

Thanks!
JK

Taste. There is simply a 'taste' with an extract brew that is not in an all grain brew. Not saying the taste is bad (for all the extract crybabies out there) but there is certainly a taste.

 

[mongoose33]

With regard to "extract twang", personal tastes, and taste in general:

I used to teach "baby bio" (first semester biology) at KU, and most of the students in the class weren't biology majors.....

<SNIP for brevity>

......Here's a reasonably good read on the subject of "tasters and non-tasters". http://www.livescience.com/17190-supertaster-nontaster-tongue-evolution.html

Paul

PS - I "searched" (not exhaustively) for threads on this subject, but did not find any. If I missed them, and this subject has been covered ad nauseam, my apologies.

Very well said, Paul. I'm a person who also doesn't particularly care for hoppy beers. I can appreciate aroma and flavor of such a beer but if it comes along with significant bitterness, well, there are other beers I'd rather have.

Spaghetti sauce is an interesting case in point--ever see someone eating spaghetti and they are SO into it that it is almost as if they are having a religious experience? Well, I have no idea what they're experiencing because to me, most spaghetti and sauce tastes like gruel. Only without flavor. I'm simply not sensitive to whatever flavors appear in such sauce.

I like malty beers. It's what I like. I've experienced a "twang" in extract beers I don't experience in my all-grain. I can accept that it may be something I taste but others don't. But that doesn't make me a bad person.

 

[gitano]

most spaghetti and sauce tastes like gruel. Only without flavor

.


Paul