The ever changing opinions of proper techniques in brewing

[Revvy]

I

To stay on topic... 60 minute boil vs what I'm perceiving to be a trend towards 75 or 90 minute boils. Why boil longer? I've never really heard of any other pros besides concentrating the wort.

I'm not seeing this trend? Where? I'm only seeing where this is concerned where it always has been....60 minute boils for normal situations. 90 minutes if there's pilsner to drive off dms....and maybe longer boils in huge beers to rocket the gravity high.

Where's the 75 minutes as a trend coming from? Not as a standard brewing thing...maybe for odd hop additions...but not for normal situations? Where are these discussions on here?

 

[Jon73]

I'm not afraid of conflicting information or opinions, now. Now that I have educated myself on most of these topics and am able to decipher what works for me and what does not. The root of what I was trying to say was that when I started out in this hobby there was so much information and that did not work for me. I needed to follow the directions, learn the process's, and then branch out. Whereas Golddiggie seems to have been the opposite and went in head first (I'm assuming). I fail to see where either one of us demonstrated any fear of the other's opinion or of conflicting facts. I felt the need to chime in on this because it looks as though you stepped in to mediate an argument that was not there.

 

[Jon73]

You type faster than I do. I have been listening to some of Jamil's CYBI podcast and longer boils have been mentioned often. I also see it in clone recipes. It may be a coincidence, but many of the beer recipes I've looked at call for longer boils.

 

[bovineblitz]

I'm not seeing this trend? Where? I'm only seeing where this is concerned where it always has been....60 minute boils for normal situations. 90 minutes if there's pilsner to drive off dms....and maybe longer boils in huge beers to rocket the gravity high.

Where's the 75 minutes as a trend coming from? Not as a standard brewing thing...maybe for odd hop additions...but not for normal situations? Where are these discussions on here?

I kinda see what he's saying, I feel like I've seen more references to 90min boils lately and even had the same thought a couple weeks ago while browsing around.

Personally I don't really care much about boil length, sometimes I do 30min boils, sometimes 70min boils... length of boil is one way I control the final volume/gravity, e.g. if I run off 1/4 gallon less than I expected, that's about 15min less to boil. It's easy to adjust the hops (if necessary). I measure everything, but if something turns out not to be super precise there's always a way to adjust.

If people believe there's a benefit, that's fine, but I've never seen any reason to worry about it for most styles and in 5-10 gal batches.

 

[Golddiggie]

I'd be curious to taste batches side by side and see what the taste difference is between identical batches, boil length being the only difference.

They won't be identical. Changing something like that will change the brew. Depending on the recipe, you could have anything from a minor difference to worlds apart.

BTW, most of the time, I target a 60 minute boil time. Sometimes I adjust (post mash) due to having more wort to boil off. I simply delay my first hop addition until I'm ready to start the 60 minute timer.

I did read up the joy book, and followed instructions for my first TWO brews. After that, I had found HBT and started going with more current methods. I've always been a fast learner, quick thinker, and adapted to different situations quickly/easily. So, for me, all of this has been pretty easy. Most of the time, when I want detailed information, it's not hard to come up with. Normally, I'm using software to get that information, so it's even easier.

I'm an advocate of new brewers learning their ingredients instead of brewing a dozen different styles, with each batch being something radically different. IMO, you need to learn how things work with different environmental variables so that you have a better idea of what to expect. To that end, I use only a few different yeast strains for my beers. I also use a handful of hop varieties and have been focusing on using a short list of malts (almost all of those ingredients are from the UK).

IF you really want to learn/expand and become even better, try making a mead. Correction, try making a GREAT mead. There's more than a few methods there too, but they all require far more time (and patience) than with almost all beers. I made my first batches of mead just over two years ago. I had a bottle (375ml) of one of those batches the other night. Very different even compared with 6-9 months ago. I'm looking forward to seeing how it is as it continues to age.

BTW, one thing that I'm pretty sure most brewers will agree upon (at least those who have been doing it for a while)... It's the "in/out" principle. I'm talking about "quality in/quality out, crap in/crap out". Basically, you're only going to get out the quality you put in. If you start off with low end/cheap/poor ingredients, you won't get something good/great out of it. It's also far easier to bugger a batch that was on target for greatness than try to elevate a crud batch into something good/great.

Also, for the record, I've yet to listen to a single brewing podcast. I do have the Designing Great Beers book, as well as Yeast, Radical Brewing and a few smaller books on specific styles I wanted to learn more about (like Barley Wine's). I can't even locate the 'joy' book I first picked up. Once I learned about how to really make a mead, the book was a waste for me.

Something else. I'm always looking to see what I can do/make/change to make my beers either come out even better, make the process easier on me, or both. I'm actually prototyping a fitting to use right now. I should have the first one made before the end of the weekend, and any design tweaks figured out. After that, I'll probably announce it to see if there's any interest (from other brewers). If not, then I'll just make them for me to use.

I would encourage any new brewers to go to sponsored brewing events/days to see how other home brewers go about it. IMO, that will expose you to more configuration options that you might have not even thought about, or considered before.

 

[bovineblitz]

They won't be identical. Changing something like that will change the brew. Depending on the recipe, you could have anything from a minor difference to worlds apart.

I'm not so sure about that. I'd be interested to see a comparison of 30, 60, and 90min boils with the same recipe and hops all added at 30min or less (probably a style with low hop presence in general would be better for comparison, maybe a cream ale or something). My money would be on there being no discernible differences.

 

[Golddiggie]

I'm not so sure about that. I'd be interested to see a comparison of 30, 60, and 90min boils with the same recipe and hops all added at 30min or less (probably a style with low hop presence in general would be better for comparison, maybe a cream ale or something). My money would be on there being no discernible differences.

Nothing from the 30 to the 90? How about between a 60 and 120 or 180? Besides being a stronger brew (higher ABV) I'd wager that there will be different flavors present in the longer boil that are simply not there in the short ones.

Bit of a moot point, IMO, since I set the boil time according to the way the recipe formulates.

 

[bovineblitz]

Nothing from the 30 to the 90? How about between a 60 and 120 or 180? Besides being a stronger brew (higher ABV) I'd wager that there will be different flavors present in the longer boil that are simply not there in the short ones.

Bit of a moot point, IMO, since I set the boil time according to the way the recipe formulates.

It wouldn't be stronger if you planned the volumes to account for the differences.

I really don't think a variation in the length of a 212*F boil of sugar in a highly diluted solution would do much to change the flavor of the sugars, but perhaps it would have a very small effect. If you want sugars to get a little caramelized you have to reduce the water content significantly which is why some people will pull off a portion and reduce it, similar to a balsalmic or wine reduction sauce.

 

[Golddiggie]

It wouldn't be stronger if you planned the volumes to account for the differences.

Then, technically, you're not making two identical batches with the boil time being the only change. You're also changing the volumes being boiled, or topping off with water post boil.

I really don't think a variation in the length of a 212*F boil of sugar in a highly diluted solution would do much to change the flavor of the sugars, but perhaps it would have a very small effect. If you want sugars to get a little caramelized you have to reduce the water content significantly which is why some people will pull off a portion and reduce it, similar to a balsalmic or wine reduction sauce.

 

[bovineblitz]

Then, technically, you're not making two identical batches with the boil time being the only change. You're also changing the volumes being boiled, or topping off with water post boil.

We're not talking about the same thing then.

I'm talking about controlling a single variable, which is boil length. Of course you'd have to increase the pre-boil volume to ensure that the original gravity winds up the same between all three batches, but that's part of the boil length variable. The question is whether a longer boil is better - if you were to actually brew this same beer with a longer boil, of course you'd have to increase the pre-boil volume.

If I'm reading what you're saying right, you're talking about boiling the same pre-boil gravity wort for varying lengths of time, which of course would result in differences as the original gravities would vary significantly.

If we were to do this comparison, my method would be the one used because you'd wind up with the same wort with the only difference between the three being possible effects of boil length.

Think of it like this:

Beer 1 - 1.050 Cream ale with a 30min boil
Beer 2 - 1.050 Cream ale with a 60min boil
Beer 3 - 1.050 Cream ale with a 90 min boil

All hops are added at 30min. Grain bill is equivalent. All 3 worts receive the same yeasts (1 packet S05 each from the same lot). Literally everything is the same except for the boil length (and thus the sparge volume).

We're interested in the effect of boil length on the same beer, so we need our wort to be the same post-boil with only one altered independent variable.

 

[Brulosopher]

100% with bovineblitz on this one

 

[Rev2010]

So in regard to this talk about boil lengths, one thing I've read many times and from many sources is that the longer the boil the more melanoidins are created. So this type of an experiment might be interesting. Is there really enough of a noticeable difference?


Rev.

 

[SixStringBeer]

boil lengths + melanoidins. Is there really enough of a noticeable difference?

Yes and no. Boil length isn't really the deciding factor though, it's more a matter of how hard the boil is. I've boiled beers for 5 hours at a very low rate and gotten minimal melanoidins and caramelization, and conversely done beers for 3 hours at a high rate and gotten really intense caramels and melanoidins. The idea some people have that as soon as you go past a 2 hour boil it's going to make the beer too caramelly or melanoidiny is plain wrong, as time spent on a boil by itself doesn't dictate what you get.

 

[moti_mo]

7. (One opinion) It's not necessary to decant a one liter starter since it's only about 5% of the total volume of a 5 gallon batch therefore won't affect the taste. (Second opinion) Always decant the starter because you don't want sour oxidized starter wort in your beer.

This is the one that caught my eye on the first read, and I'm glad you put "one opinion", "second opinion" instead of "original reccomendation", "modern day reccomendation". For me, at least, the jury is still out on this one. I've never decanted starters, so I have no side-by-side comparisons. But the logic that goes into your paraphrase that is often cited here "you don't want sour oxidized starter wort in your beer." is something I don't buy into, until I see some data otherwise. If you pitch at high krausen, which is what I (and presumably most others who pitch full starters into their beer without decanting) do, then you're not pitching sour oxidized starter wort into your beer. If you follow proper sanitation protocol, even using an open (i.e. foil-covered) starter, and pitch at high krausen (usually within 10 - 18 hours for me), then your starter wort IS NOT oxidized or sour. I've never decanted starters, and have never gotten any hints of oxidation or sourness in any of my beers (unless of course I was purposefully making a sour beer!).

 

[Golddiggie]

I decant my starters because I don't want DME based wort to go into my all grain batch. Plus, I'm usually at the safe point, for total volume, in fermenting vessel, Adding another 2-3L of spent starter wort could put me into a serious danger zone. IMO, properly planning (taking cold crash time into account) for the starter means I don't need to worry about that at all.

BTW, I'm often doing stepped starters, so I'm already chilling and decanting at least one time. In reality, it's a damned easy process.

 

[moti_mo]

Yeah, if you're doing big starters or stepping, you decant by necessity. I only do 0.75 - 1 L starters, so I typically don't worry about it. Additionally, I rarely know that I'm brewing until the day before, and can only plan on doing a starter before I go to bed that night, so chilling and decanting isn't something that is typically well-timed for me.

Definitely not saying that you SHOULD put your full starter into your beer and not decant, I'm just saying that if you do a relatively small starter and pitch at high krausen, you're not pitching oxidized sour wort into your beer.

 

[sudbuster]

I've been brewing for two years now so I'm past most doubts and worries, been there done that and I've got my processes down, but one thing I've noticed that still intrigues me is the extremely varied opinions on what is proper and what is not over time. I know overall even if one screws up big time we nearly always end up with beer. And most of the time perfectly drinkable beer. But having read a number of respected books and being on here for all this time really has me intrigued as to the changes in opinions on processes between the brewing literature and current day brewing. I will list a few of the examples I can think of off the top of my head:

1. (Original recommendation) Don't squeeze the grain bag, it will extract tannins. (Modern day recommendation) It doesn't make any difference at all. Many people doing steeping or BIAB squeeze the living Jesus out of their bags with no ill effects.

2. (Original recommendation) Fly Sparging gives the best effeciency and if you batch sparge the more sparges the better effeciency. (Modern day recommendation) It doesn't matter much at all and the efficiency difference is so minute that a single sparge is all that is necessary.

3. (Original recommendation) Do a protein rest for pilsener malt. (Modern day recommendation) Most malts today are well modified so it's not necessary unless you know for sure the malt is under modified - hence a single infusion is often all that is necessary.

4. (Original recommendation) Decoction mashing is necessary for a true German beer taste. (Modern day recommendation) So and so has done extensive tests and finds no difference in taste therefore decocting is not necessary and a waste of time.

5. (Original recommendation) For a hefeweizen a ferulic acid rest creates compounds that bring out more of the "clove" taste. (Modern day recommendation) So and so has done extensive tests and finds no difference in taste therefore it's an unnecessary step.

6. (Original recommendation) As according to the bottle label it says to use one tablet of Whirlfloc at 15 minutes near the end of boil. (Modern day recommendation) It's been written online that people have spoken with the actual manufacturer and they say one tablet is good for up to 12 gallons so only half a tablet is needed and it's most effective at the last 5 minutes of the boil.

7. (One opinion) It's not necessary to decant a one liter starter since it's only about 5% of the total volume of a 5 gallon batch therefore won't affect the taste. (Second opinion) Always decant the starter because you don't want sour oxidized starter wort in your beer.

8. (Original recommendation) Cool your priming suger solution before you add it to the beer. (Modern day recommendation) It's not necessary to cool the priming sugar solution since it's so small an amount any yeast it might immmediately contact and shock/kill is so small as to be insignificant.

9. (Original recommendation) After adding your sparge water allow ten minutes for the grain bed to set. (Modern day recommendation) Don't waste the time, vorlaufing sets the grain bed so start vorlaufing immediately.

Well, these are what I could think of off the top of my head. I'd like to state right up front I am NOT challenging any of the recommendations either old or new. I've found and gone with my own processes and am quite happy with the beers I brew so no trouble there. I'm only creating this thread to see if anyone else has been intrigued by the large degree of difference in process opinions in this wonderful hobby/field of ours. Again, either way you are making beer, I just find it rather interesting that on one hand there are those that tout things as the "proper way" and yet there are many hardened experienced others that say, "Umm no... that isn't necessary at all".


Rev.

You been brewing for TWO WHOLE YEARS!!! Wow, you must be some kind of expert by now. Have you thought about just going back to brewing and getting over yourself? Some of us have been homebrewing for over 35 years and after many experiments, bow to the time honored traditions. Those people were not fools, and they had hundreds of years to perfect their knowledge. Why do you suppose Sam Adams brews in the traditional manner? Some of their beers are decoction brewed.

Yeah, concerning the premise for your post, I can agree, you can hear anything anymore because there are a bunch of WANNABEEs only interested in trying to exalt themselves with their supposed knowledge of brewing. My suggestion is to ground oneself in Fix, Donaldson, Miller, Noonan, and those who have proven themselves, then forget about the Johnny-come-lately bunch with all their mis-information.

 

[Golddiggie]

I typically plan my brew-days at least a week ahead. I've actually got them planned for the rest of this year (not that much of a stretch though). I like to plan the next 2-3 so that I make sure I have the ingredients I need to make them.

No, I was never a Boy Scout, but I'm very often more than a little prepared. I know where my towel is, and I got my pocket knife on me...

 

[metanoia]

You been brewing for TWO WHOLE YEARS!!! Wow, you must be some kind of expert by now. Have you thought about just going back to brewing and getting over yourself? Some of us have been homebrewing for over 35 years and after many experiments, bow to the time honored traditions. Those people were not fools, and they had hundreds of years to perfect their knowledge. Why do you suppose Sam Adams brews in the traditional manner? Some of their beers are decoction brewed.

Yeah, concerning the premise for your post, I can agree, you can hear anything anymore because there are a bunch of WANNABEEs only interested in trying to exalt themselves with their supposed knowledge of brewing. My suggestion is to ground oneself in Fix, Donaldson, Miller, Noonan, and those who have proven themselves, then forget about the Johnny-come-lately bunch with all their mis-information.

Eeek, someone thinks they're hot stuff. I guess all of us who have been brewing for less than 35 years should just stay in our cave and never come out; sharing knowledge on the internet could never lead to better beer! ipe:

Anyway, getting back to topic from a couple pages back, I've got a question regarding the rapid advances in sharing brewing information. I want to pick up a new book soon and I'm wondering if Designing Great Beers is still relevant. I always hear it mentioned despite being published 15 years ago. Or would my money be better spent with something new from Jamil, like Brewing Classic Styles or Yeast?

I borrowed Papazian's book from the library and really wasn't impressed compared reading through these forums for a while. I'm not so interested in learning about when beer was made from a hopped extract can in the grocery store and when hops were sold brown. Thanks.

 

[Golddiggie]

Designing Great Beers is more about the science behind the brew, along with some history of the styles. It has a limited selection of styles covered though.

IMO, Yeast is well worth the money.

I don't have the Brewing Classic Styles, so I don't know about that one. I have a few other books, but Yeast sticks out as probably the most valuable. Followed (closely) by Designing Great Beers. After that, I have a few style specific books that I've read. Basically good info on the history of a style, but not much for recipes we would use (or I would).

 

[granpooba19]

You been brewing for TWO WHOLE YEARS!!! Wow, you must be some kind of expert by now. Have you thought about just going back to brewing and getting over yourself? Some of us have been homebrewing for over 35 years and after many experiments, bow to the time honored traditions. Those people were not fools, and they had hundreds of years to perfect their knowledge. Why do you suppose Sam Adams brews in the traditional manner? Some of their beers are decoction brewed.

Yeah, concerning the premise for your post, I can agree, you can hear anything anymore because there are a bunch of WANNABEEs only interested in trying to exalt themselves with their supposed knowledge of brewing. My suggestion is to ground oneself in Fix, Donaldson, Miller, Noonan, and those who have proven themselves, then forget about the Johnny-come-lately bunch with all their mis-information.

That was constructive

I, on the other hand, didn't know that waiting ten minutes after batch sparging wasn't really thought of as required anymore. Thanks for the tip!

 

[moti_mo]

I typically plan my brew-days at least a week ahead. I've actually got them planned for the rest of this year (not that much of a stretch though). I like to plan the next 2-3 so that I make sure I have the ingredients I need to make them.

No, I was never a Boy Scout, but I'm very often more than a little prepared. I know where my towel is, and I got my pocket knife on me...

That's cool. Everybody's lives and brewing styles are a little bit different!

 

[gcdowd]

In my many months on this forum, this is the greatest thread I've had the pleasure to read. Major bonus for the great nuggets of knowledge from Revvy. And props to all the other knowledge bombs dropped in this thread

 

[metanoia]

Thanks for the info Golddiggie, I'm definitely leaning towards Yeast. Yeast and fermentation really are the most important parts of brewing and I really want to start refining my process soon.

 

[Golddiggie]

Thanks for the info Golddiggie, I'm definitely leaning towards Yeast. Yeast and fermentation really are the most important parts of brewing and I really want to start refining my process soon.

Knowing how to better treat your yeast, through information provided in that book, will go a long way (IMO/IME) towards getting even better brews. Next to yeast treatment, I think recipe formulation is the next important thing. Knowing how different malts/ingredients work together (or don't) is huge. I'm a firm believer in using a handful of malts, and hops, to get my batches. I use about 7-8 non-base malts in my recipes (not all in the same one, just those are what I use more often). There are a couple that I very rarely use too. I'm using just two base malts right now too (both from the UK). For hops, I have only a few varieties on hand, that I've been using. Most of my brews, lately, have been single hoped.
Using software (BeerSmith), I"m able to formulate my brews pretty tight prior to when I'll be brewing them. Many times, I've got the recipe set a few brews ahead. For me, that helps to ensure I'll have the ingredients needed for that batch on hand when it comes time.

As it's been said many times before, over many threads on this site... Ask a dozen brewers how they brew, and you'll probably get close to a dozen completely different setups. You'll probably get at least half a dozen very different methods being used too. Not a one of them is 100% right or wrong as long as they produce good/great beer.


BTW, sudbuster, who pissed in your beer??

 

[metanoia]

Love it, Golddiggie. I think my first real project into refining the ingredients aspect of brewing is to stick with a SMaSH I just brewed with Maris Otter and UK Goldings. I hope to pitch on to that yeast cake or use some washed yeast (depends what works best) from one batch to the next, then tweak how the outcome is with different levels of malt, hops, toasting some of the malt, fermentation temp, etc.

If my wife hadn't just gotten pregnant I'd probably be making some darker stouts and porters for her, but now that we're working on baby #3 I'll probably be sticking to simpler golden/cooper brews in the near future (my preference). Probably best for a new all-grainer to keep it simple.

 

[Golddiggie]

Both of the MO SMaSH recipes I have posted are also with EKG. Check them out for ideas. Rebel Brewer carries the crystal MO. I really like the batches with either Wyeast 1882-PC or 1335. I make starters (haven't washed yeast in some time) so that I know I have the cell count needed. Before you start pitching onto the cakes, read the Yeast book. IMO/IME, you'll be very glad you did.

BTW, I include fermenting temperature control in 'yeast treatment' since temperature heavily impacts what a yeast will do/give you.

 

[Rev2010]

You been brewing for TWO WHOLE YEARS!!! Wow, you must be some kind of expert by now. Have you thought about just going back to brewing and getting over yourself? Some of us have been homebrewing for over 35 years

What on Earth is your problem?? I guess your personality matches your avatar. This is not the first time you've come into a thread of mine with anger and aggression over NOTHING! I've never done anything to you so I don't know why you are harassing me, are you just an angry drinker or something? I've reported your post. I have no idea what your purpose is on this forum. NOTHING I've said is to frown down upon anyone's techniques or to challenge anyone and I'd stated that in my original post. You sir need some serious help and you really should not be posting on public forums. And by the way, I've decocted many times, my point about decocting is OTHERS saying it's a waste of time and my asking how if it's a long held tradition over many centuries. Did you even read my post?


Rev.

 

[metanoia]

Thanks for the heads up. I'd say I'd bookmark both of your MO SMaSH recipes, but I already have the ESB one bookmarked from a few weeks ago! I used it somewhat as a basis for my first attempt, while mixing in some other bits of info I picked up from other places. It actually wasn't a true SMaSH because I couldn't get Crystal MO at the LHBS and I was itching to brew, so I used 1lb of Crystal 60L and 10lb of MO. 1oz of UKG at 60, 15, and 3. I also had two packets of S-04 in the fridge that I wanted to use, so that's what I pitched.

For future brews I plan on toasting 2lb of the MO a few weeks ahead of time and mixing with 8-9lb untoasted. I'm sure I'll try with some Crystal MO in the future as well. ESBs are really one of my favorites so I can see this sticking around. Plus, I like the name I made for it: Smashing Bitters.

 

[granpooba19]

What on Earth is your problem?? I guess your personality matches your avatar. This is not the first time you've come into a thread of mine with anger and aggression over NOTHING! I've never done anything to you so I don't know why you are harassing me, are you just an angry drinker or something? I've reported your post. I have no idea what your purpose is on this forum. NOTHING I've said is to frown down upon anyone's techniques or to challenge anyone and I'd stated that in my original post. You sir need some serious help and you really should not be posting on public forums. And by the way, I've decocted many times, my point about decocting is OTHERS saying it's a waste of time and my asking how if it's a long held tradition over many centuries. Did you even read my post?


Rev.

:rockin: