Taste difference: home brew vs commercial

[Revvy]

Care to share that recipe?

It's posted around here all over the place....

I'll have to dig it out if you can't find it.

 

[Denny]

Just so I can be clear, I didn't mean to say that homebrew is necessarily not as good as commercial or vice versa. It's not a given either way. For instance, many people thought that my version of Rye IPA was better than the one Rogue made. OTOH, there are other Rogue beers that are far better than what I make.

 

[EoinMag]

Hmm why is it not possible that a fanatical hobbiest can produce a much better babied beer than some "couldn't give a crap" commercial brewer who brews to put bread on the table?

Not at all surprising.

I personally find that homebrew, even kits, are beating commercial beers (for me personally) purely because I am losing the taste for filtered beer, it's nowhere near as good once you remove the yeasty goodness in my opinion.

 

[FireBrewer]

I've had quite a few great homebrews (not necessarily my own; I maintain that you can't completely and objectively judge your own beer) and some bad ones. Likewise I've had some great commercial brews and some not-so-great ones.

Something that commonly goes unnoticed is the fact that not all commercial beer is "perfect". There seems to be some unstated impression that if something's commercially produced, it's a 50 point beer, period. So many times that's not the case. I don't care if Stone, Russian River, Victory, or Boston Beer makes it.

I could tell you about a porter that I had at an Oktoberfest that had so much diacetyl I was thinking about pouring it on popcorn. When I asked the brewer about it, he said "some people like that flavor". And to further the point, as a homebrewer you could dump a batch if there was a flaw that didn't render the beer undrinkable; it's up to you. As a professional brewer, you may have to just acknowledge that it's not the best and hope that it still sells. Brewing a few hundred gallons costs a lot more than a $30 5-gallon batch.

Or, I could tell you about the few beers we had in BJCP class that, while they were commercial examples of their styles were still flawed: Saison Dupont was skunked, Negra Modelo was oxidized, etc. Was a good way to learn about flaws though.

A few months ago I bought a Köstritzer Schwarzbier (BJCP commercial example). Oxidized. A few years ago I bought a 6er of Lancaster Hop Hog. Infected!!! (to that end, my wife told me that BJCP class has ruined my taste for beer! )

We all know there's many variables to brewing and professional brewers generally have more control over those variables brought about by equipment, time, etc. But that doesn't mean they produce flawless beer. Likewise, despite homebrewing being an "amateur" designation, many craft brewers had their start as homebrewers and haven't necessarily attended professional brewing school.

But to say a homebrewed beer can't stand up to a commercial beer is foolish and ignorant. Either you've just never tasted a homebrew that good, or you don't really know as much as you think you do.

 

[Revvy]

Something that commonly goes unnoticed is the fact that not all commercial beer is "perfect". There seems to be some unstated impression that if something's commercially produced, it's a 50 point beer, period. So many times that's not the case. I don't care if Stone, Russian River, Victory, or Boston Beer makes it.

But to say a homebrewed beer can't stand up to a commercial beer is foolish and ignorant. Either you've just never had a homebrew that good, or you don't really know as much as you think you do.

I love you man!!!! (No homo)

 

[ToddO]

I think ultimately it's totally subjective. Seriously - enough of the "my beer was blind taste tested against "xyz" and it was deemed "better". Good beer is good beer. Homebrew beer can be great, micro beer can be great. Even mass produced beer can be great. None are really better than the other. We are all using the same ingredients and to a certain extent the same process. ALL Beer can only reach a certain level of being great and we ALL can reach it - whether we are brewing 5 gallons in our closet or doing the nano, micro, etc. level..

 

[remilard]

Something that commonly goes unnoticed is the fact that not all commercial beer is "perfect". There seems to be some unstated impression that if something's commercially produced, it's a 50 point beer, period. So many times that's not the case. I don't care if Stone, Russian River, Victory, or Boston Beer makes it.

A lot of commercial beers are 40 point beers, the vast majority of home brew is not.

But to say a homebrewed beer can't stand up to a commercial beer is foolish and ignorant. Either you've just never tasted a homebrew that good, or you don't really know as much as you think you do.

Does your straw man have a name?

Nobody is saying that a home brewed can't be better than a commercial beer. What people are saying is that:

1. In general, commercial beer is better than home brewed beer and
2. Anybody who claims that their home brewed beer is better than any commercial beer is probably not evaluating their own beer the same way a neutral third party would.

There is a lot of bad home brewed beers that are bad coming straight out of the home brewery (not 3 years and 5000 miles later in the back of some liquor store). Not a lot of commercial beers are as bad as bad home brew.

 

[FireBrewer]

A lot of commercial beers are 40 point beers, the vast majority of home brew is not.

And you have the data to back that statement up?

1. In general, commercial beer is better than home brewed beer and

I'd say more consistent, nothing more.

2. Anybody who claims that their home brewed beer is better than any commercial beer is probably not evaluating their own beer the same way a neutral third party would.

That I completely agree with. IMHO, you can't 100% objectively judge your own beer. Variances in palette sensitivities, sensory education, etc. all play a part.

There is a lot of bad home brewed beers that are bad coming straight out of the home brewery (not 3 years and 5000 miles later in the back of some liquor store). Not a lot of commercial beers are as bad as bad home brew.

Again, as a vast generalization that statement only holds so much water and there are enough exceptions to that rule to make it anecdotal. "A lot" is hardly a precise number. Sure, oxidation accounts for distance and time but how do you account for infection, diacetyl, acetaldehyde, ethyl acetate at the commercial level? There's a lot of bad commercially brewed beers that are bad coming straight out of the commercial brewery too. Maybe you just haven't had 'em or haven't had the sensory education to be able to detect it.

I think you need to re-read my statement to understand what I'm trying to convey, remilard.

 

[jdc2]

1. In general, commercial beer is better than home brewed beer and
2. Anybody who claims that their home brewed beer is better than any commercial beer is probably not evaluating their own beer the same way a neutral third party would.

There is a lot of bad home brewed beers that are bad coming straight out of the home brewery (not 3 years and 5000 miles later in the back of some liquor store). Not a lot of commercial beers are as bad as bad home brew.

Commercial beer is "better" only in that it is of consistent quality. Homebrews
are more variable even with the same recipe because not all aspects of the
process can be controlled precisely. That said, no commercial brewer can
brew beer as good as my favorite recipe because as far as I know, no
commercial brewer makes it. On top of that, my homebrew is absolutely
fresh. It also deteriorates in the bottle faster than commercial brew.

On the other hand, I don't see how any "clone" of a good commercial
beer like Sierra Nevada Pale Ale could be as "good" as the authentic,
because while it may be a great beer in its own right, unless you have
duplicated *exactly* the ingredients AND the process, it's a different
beer. It's like saying you've cloned Coca-Cola exactly. But I've never
seen the point of clone brewing anyway.
Jim

 

[jdc2]

What could be the difference in the flavor profile assuming the home brew is properly made to style?

1. The level of carbonation in your beer is probably less. Good
taste experiment: Take a can or bottle of Guiness with the nitrogen
widget, and a bottle of the old style Guiness. Taste a little of
the widget beer, then taste the carbonated version. The carbonated
version tastes like the widget version with soda water added.
2. Yeast in the homebrew.

I never understood this "properly made to style" bit. Suppose
you want to make a Sam Smith brown ale. Do you have the
top-cropping fermentation vessels they have? Do you have
exactly the malt and roasted malt they have? Identical strain
of hops? Can you carbonate exactly to the level they do in
their bottled version? I think you can get in the ballpark, but
the home version will inevitably be different.
Jim

 

[StunnedMonkey]

Commercial beer is "better" only in that it is of consistent quality. Homebrews are more variable even with the same recipe because not all aspects of the process can be controlled precisely. That said, no commercial brewer can brew beer as good as my favorite recipe because as far as I know, no commercial brewer makes it.

Well, "better" is completely subjective, at least so far as any individual consumer is concerned. Is the brew you get from your personal recipe "better" than most commercial examples of whatever style it is? I dunno. I'm sure you think so. And that's all that matters. This dork-waving "my homebrew is better than commecial brew" is stupid. Of course everyone thinks their own homebrew is absolutely the most awesomest stuff ever freaking created. And their kids are all the smartest and most talented as well.

Except me. My kids are obnoxious and my beer tastes like ass most of the time. I guess I'm in the minority here.

 

[remilard]

Again, as a vast generalization that statement only holds so much water and there are enough exceptions to that rule to make it anecdotal. "A lot" is hardly a precise number. Sure, oxidation accounts for distance and time but how do you account for infection, diacetyl, acetaldehyde, ethyl acetate at the commercial level? There's a lot of bad commercially brewed beers that are bad coming straight out of the commercial brewery too. Maybe you just haven't had 'em or haven't had the sensory education to be able to detect it.

I've never tasted acetaldehyde in a commercial beer other than Budweiser, where it is intentional. Diacetyl is intentional in a number of beers and gets worse/raunchy over time, these should be drunk fresh. No beer is microbiologically stable unless it has bee pasteurized or stable filtered, try treating your beer like commercial beer is treated and then forget about it for a year and see what it tastes like.

Ethyl acetate? Certainly not common in commercial beer, not nearly as common as home brewed beer.

I never said there were no bad commercial beers, but flaws in fresh examples are the exception. A home brewed beer free of process flaws is the exception in the home brew world. Huge difference in quality, on balance.

 

[Picobrew]

Here is my opinion.

Things that generally benefit commercial beer:

-Very consistent and predictable efficiency on mashing
-Mash tuns and fermenters that are sized with width/height/pressure ratios that are theoretically best for the job at hand
-Much more accurate temperature control
-Better oxygenation/aeration techniques
-Filtering. I know that a lot of the commercial breweries know exactly the ppm of yeast they leave in the bottle.
-Yeast lab and all the benefits that come with that: accurate viability and pitching rates, generational management, mutation management
-Always all grain, never extract


This that generally benefit homebrew:
-Freshness
-Flexibility, freedom, 'accidents'
-Unconstrained by commercial demands, pricing
-the LACK of consistency
-More product experimentation (We can use lots of different malts and weird adjuncts - commercial breweries don't/can't do this as much)
-Freedom to use many more yeasts from around the world. Most commercial breweries use 1-3
-Artisan care and monitoring. Quite different than lab and device monitoring, homebrewers watch their beer very closely and carefully at each step. A team doesn't do it, one person does.

There are definitely benefits to both styles - but a very resourceful and thorough homebrewer can take the good elements from commercial brewing and leave the impractical ones behind.

We get hung up a lot on consistency - but I don't think consistency is as important as others do. It is VERY important for selling a mass market product, but isn't a marker of 'quality'. Think about McDonald's vs. your favorite family-owned restaurant. McDonald's is probably much more consistent, but the chef at your favorite restaurant can use more seasonal ingredients, can better adjust for moment, kitchen conditions, the palate of the diner in question.

In brewing, we talk about consistency a lot because we want to 'hit our numbers' and a lot of us think about going pro some day, but it isn't something that bogs me down. Sometimes missing my numbers gives me a delicious beer. Is it better or worse than what I set out to do? Who knows. I certainly never worry about consistency when cooking, I don't even use recipes or measuring cups. Brewing might be a bit closer to baking in that regard, but I still think the lack of consistency and the accidental homeruns are exciting, not a bad thing.

 

[IceFisherChris]

1. In general, commercial beer is better than home brewed beer and
2. Anybody who claims that their home brewed beer is better than any commercial beer is probably not evaluating their own beer the same way a neutral third party would.

I can't agree with #1, but I can't also disagree. I agree that a lot of home brewers out there are making sub-par beers. Off flavors and all of that junk happen a lot when it comes to homebrewing. Just because HBT talk has a ton of successful brewers doesn't mean that everyone is.
I don't take remilard's comment to mean "it's usually not possible to homebrew as well as a commercial brewery." IF every homebrewer had perfect equipment and perfect techniques, then a good recipe will create award winning beer. But for every good BREWER, there are probably at least twice as many "not very good" brewers.

If you picked 100 random people to build you a table, do you really think they would do better than 100 people who are woodworkers for a living?

Comment #2 is partially right in my eyes. There is always some bias with home brew. If you always say your home brew is better, the you probably mean you feel more pride drinking home brew than commercial beer. I admit that drinking my own beer feels better than buying beer. I'm sad to also admit that I would rather be able to create a homebrew exactly like Bell's Two hearted ale.

The real way of thinking is... "If my homebrew was actually made by Company X, would I choose it instead of a brew by Company Y?"

 

[remilard]

Think about McDonald's vs. your favorite family-owned restaurant. McDonald's is probably much more consistent, but the chef at your favorite restaurant can use more seasonal ingredients, can better adjust for moment, kitchen conditions, the palate of the diner in question.

Good analogy, wrong application.

McDonalds = Anheuser Busch
My favorite restaurant = Russian River, Rogue, Free State, New Glarus etc
Guy on the internet saying his ******* (anything from tater tot casserole to very good home made food) is better than anything I can buy at a restaurant = home brewer

 

[d510addict]

I can make better cheesecake than safeway.................there I said it. Following this line a homebrewer can make better beer than a prof brewer. IT JUST TAKES PRACTICE AND SPECIALIZATION.

 

[Picobrew]

Good analogy, wrong application.

McDonalds = Anheuser Busch
My favorite restaurant = Russian River, Rogue, Free State, New Glarus etc
Guy on the internet saying his ******* (anything from tater tot casserole to very good home made food) is better than anything I can buy at a restaurant = home brewer

The tiers of the analogy may be off but the point still stands. As a home cook I can make food that rivals my favorite restaurant, as can many people.

I have heard plenty of non-brewers say they prefer homebrew over commercial beer, and plenty prefer commercial. I just don't think there is some magical dividing line between homebrewers and "the best beer".

 

[IceFisherChris]

Good analogy, wrong application.

McDonalds = Anheuser Busch
My favorite restaurant = Russian River, Rogue, Free State, New Glarus etc
Guy on the internet saying his ******* (anything from tater tot casserole to very good home made food) is better than anything I can buy at a restaurant = home brewer

The application is about being consistent with the recipe. McDonald's is strict. If you order a cheeseburger in 1999 and one in 2009, they should be almost exactly alike. If they aren't then it's an employee not caring (external variable that should be irrelevant here.)

Now order a cheeseburger from Dad. It probably won't be the same as it was 10 years ago. But it probably tastes better to you.

The whole point of the argument was to say that consistency is not equal to quality. McDonalds can make the exact same cheeseburger for 10 years, but that doesn't mean it tastes better than a cheeseburger made from Dad. Sometimes it might, but it doesn't automatically mean "always."

 

[carnevoodoo]

I can make better cheesecake than safeway.................there I said it. Following this line a homebrewer can make better beer than a prof brewer. IT JUST TAKES PRACTICE AND SPECIALIZATION.

But that's really a silly and specific argument. Can you make cheesecake better than the finer pastry chefs and bakers in the country? I would venture to say not.

At the same time, is there a lot of middling, boring beer being produced by the Safeways of the industry? Sure. Is there more bad homebrew than good? Yup. Can the lines be blurred? Of course. However, the best of the best commercial breweries still have advantages and will still produce better beer. And while I've had some phenomenal homebrewed beer, I still end up at the bar, and in bottle shops. I'm willing to give Vinnie at Russian River my 22 dollars for every bottle of Consecration I drink. I'm really happy I can buy Speedway Stout. These beers are better than any homebrewed beer I've ever tasted, hands down. And while I've had plenty of homebrewed beer that rivals anything of its style, there are just some other things that just can't be touched.

Of course it is all opinion, and I would rather drink most homebrewed beer before I drank anything from a brewery like Rogue. That's all where it comes down to preference.

 

[carnevoodoo]

Just because HBT talk has a ton of successful brewers doesn't mean that everyone is.

I just wanted to pull this part out really quick because it nails a point right on. This board, as active as it is, is still a minority of brewers. There's a LOT of really bad homebrewed beer in the world. We're all just that much more obsessive.

 

[carnevoodoo]

I've never tasted acetaldehyde in a commercial beer other than Budweiser, where it is intentional.

Let's go to the Blind Lady here in San Diego tomorrow. There's a keg of World Wide Stout there that's an acetalaldehyde bomb. Yuuuum.

 

[-TH-]

Everyone on the internet benches 300, makes better beer than any commercial brewery, has well behaved children, etc.

My children are not well behaved. But they are cuter than anyone elses .

But back on subject,
Q#1: Is homebrew better than commercial beer? It certainly can be.
Q#2: Is commercial beer better than homebrew? It certainly can be.

I love the use of analogies so I'll use one of my own:

If someone asked me the question, is homebrewed coffee better than Starbucks? One way I could answer would be to say that I can certainly make it to my liking better. Even though I don’t even have as expensive of equipment, I can buy the same ingredients (starbucks coffee beans), I can control the grind, how much to use, and I can drink it right after brewing. Do others like it better? I don’t know, maybe not. Another way I could answer the first question however would be to simply say: no, in general Starbucks brews better coffee than most homebrewed (when you include my in-laws' Maxwell House brew and the like).

So in my opinion, we cannot answer the question of which is better, homebrew or commercial, without getting VERY specific in the way we ask the question. And I think if we did that, most of us here would be in agreement.

 

[jdc2]

Well, "better" is completely subjective, at least so far as any individual consumer is concerned. Is the brew you get from your personal recipe "better" than most commercial examples of whatever style it is? I dunno. I'm sure you think so. And that's all that matters. This dork-waving "my homebrew is better than commecial brew" is stupid. Of course everyone thinks their own homebrew is absolutely the most awesomest stuff ever freaking created. And their kids are all the smartest and most talented as well.

Except me. My kids are obnoxious and my beer tastes like ass most of the time. I guess I'm in the minority here.

I can't agree with that. Two of the best beers I've ever had were brewed
by a homebrewer who ran a homebrew shop and by a brewpub which brewed
a special (and high priced) batch. Big breweries make a beer that "stands out"
and is recognizable, like Guiness or Sierra Nevada, but they don't in general produce something subtle and well-balanced. And I don't think I like my beer
because it's mine, I like it because it's good and because it's unique (about
halfway between a red ale and a brown ale, and hopped uniquely) and I've
never tasted it anywhere else. And a very large amount of bottled microbrew
is mediocre.
Jim

 

[StunnedMonkey]

Seems to me that there are two different arguments being carried out that aren't really exclusive of each other. One is the argument that any one batch of homebrew may be superior to 99% of what you could buy off the shelf. I'll buy that. The second is that most of the homebrew being brewed today is probably not up to par with most of the beer being produced by the better craft breweries. Also true.

We can always compare the very best of what we produce (be it beer or cheesecake or hamburgers) against the worst commercial examples and come out on top. But I'll be the first to tell you that the best beers I've made still wouldn't rival the best commercial examples of the style...if judged by anyone besides me and my mother that is.

 

[NCBeernut]

The big difference may just be that your home brew HAS a flavor profile unlike many commercial brews

You aren't drinking the right commercial beers.

 

[jdc2]

Seems to me that there are two different arguments being carried out that aren't really exclusive of each other. One is the argument that any one batch of homebrew may be superior to 99% of what you could buy off the shelf. I'll buy that. The second is that most of the homebrew being brewed today is probably not up to par with most of the beer being produced by the better craft breweries. Also true.

We can always compare the very best of what we produce (be it beer or cheesecake or hamburgers) against the worst commercial examples and come out on top. But I'll be the first to tell you that the best beers I've made still wouldn't rival the best commercial examples of the style...if judged by anyone besides me and my mother that is.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the best of my homebrew is as
good as the best commercial beer, and on top of that is not even
available commercially. Take one of the "best commercial examples
of a style",Guiness. I'm sure that I can't make a clone as good as
the original, not because homebrewing techniques prevent me, but
because I don't know *exactly* what the ingredients AND the process for
making it are.

How could any beer, commercial or not, be "the best example of the style"?
Within any style there are an infinite variety of examples not identical
to each other. You end up comparing apples with oranges, even if
both could be classified in a general way as a "brown ale" or whatever.
Jim

 

[Denny]

Hmm why is it not possible that a fanatical hobbiest can produce a much better babied beer than some "couldn't give a crap" commercial brewer who brews to put bread on the table?

It depends on the homebrewer and the commercial brewer. I'd hardly say people like John Maier and Greg Koch (to name only 2) don't give a crap.

 

[StunnedMonkey]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the best of my homebrew is as good as the best commercial beer, and on top of that is not even available commercially.

Well, I've never tasted your homebrew so I can't say whether I'd agree with you or not. Perhaps you're an uncommonly gifted brewer and I'd think that your stuff is the best I've ever had, commercial or otherwise. I'm in no position to argue the point.

I will say that I may prefer to drink my own 90% of the time, but I'd never contend that it's objectively superior to the best that quality craft brewers produce. Perhaps I'm in the minority though.

 

[olllllo]

If everybody grabs a really big brush, we can paint this thread really quickly!

 

[ChickenSoop]

I have only been homebrewing for a year, and my home brew is better than standard commercial beers. It's like eating a fresh hot homemade loaf of bread out of your oven vs eating a dried out loaf of commercial bread that was sitting on the shelf for 3 days.

If you are making good beer, you will know it. If you are questioning your beer quality, you are doing something wrong.