The ever changing opinions of proper techniques in brewing

[Revvy]

HBT may be full of info, but it lacks references.

Many of us try to provide references in the information we give. I try to back up as much of what I write with other sources.

And as to your asertion about 200 dollar professional text books out there with invalid, or plainly outdated information. Ask any professor of medicine if that 200 dollar surgery textbook written 30 years ago still has merit today.

The best thing to do is to take information, ANY INFORMATION, in and try it for yourself.

 

[AnOldUR]

Ask any professor of medicine if that 200 dollar surgery textbook written 30 years ago still has merit today.

The best thing to do is to take information, ANY INFORMATION, in and try it for yourself.

Hope your heart doctor didn't read 30 year old text and try it out on you.









. . . joking, I do agree with the point you're making.

 

[Revvy]

Hope your heart doctor didn't read 30 year old text and try it out on you.









. . . joking, I do agree with the point you're making.

Actually the cool thing about my surgeon, though I didn't benefit from it, is that he is at the cutting edge of the future of this kind of valve replacement in the US. That's one of the reasons that I got a pig valve instead of an artificial one while at the same time one of our other members who had the same surgery got an artificial one, and had to go on kumadin.

The future arc of this surgery is that when I need it replaced in 15-20 years it will be outpatient surgery, they'll go in through the fermoral artery, supposedly grab some tissue from somewhere else in the body, and build and install the replacement valve right in place.

Totally non invasive, no rib cracking and home the same day, or the next one.

I was his last surgery before he and his entire team flew to Germany where they're pioneering this type of heart surgery, to train with them. Then he came back and replaced a valve on a kid in a totally different less invasive way than he did mine. It wasn't like I describe above, but it was much less invasive than mine.

I asked him why I wasn't the beneficiary of this, that I would have waited a week longer, and he said that I had been considered, but unfortunately there was more damage around the valve than they could handle less invasively. He said that if they had started on me that way, when they saw the calcification around the valve, they would have opened me up anyway.

But he was still confident that that would not hinder a non invasive replacement of mine down the line. It was cool though he literally released from the hospital me and headed for the airport.

 

[user 19629]

I had an uncle who brewed his own when I around 5 years old...would have been late 70's I guess. Sure wish he was still alive to pick his brain!

The only issue I have with most of these posts is the guys with 15 years of brewing experience are not the only ones making comments in most threads...Its easier for a new guy to read a book and trust that book, than to come on a site like this where any Tom Dick or Harry can post some lame comment and pass it off as fact. To me, the books and articles form a foundation, something you can at least partialy trust, even if it's not always fact and is later retracted.

I agree with you on this.
Sure maybe some of the info in these books has been disproved.
But if you follow the guide lines in the books you have a good chance of making a tasty beer. So the book may say to avoid hot side aeration, don't squeeze a grain bag, or transfer to secondary.
Though these things may not be critical, they are certainly not going to harm the beer.
If I knew nothing about brewing , and came to this forum to learn how, I would be confused as hell and probably give up.
If you look at posts where some one says they know nothing about brewing, usually the firsts response goes something like, " read Palmer's, How to Brew "
No one says go to the Beginner"s Forum and read 65,284 topics.
Believe me I've learned a ton about brewing from the internet, but don't disregard books and magazines as useless or harmful information.

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

I agree with you on this.
Sure maybe some of the info in these books has been disproved.
But if you follow the guide lines in the books you have a good chance of making a tasty beer. So the book may say to avoid hot side aeration, don't squeeze a grain bag, or transfer to secondary.
Though these things may not be critical, they are certainly not going to harm the beer.
If I knew nothing about brewing , and came to this forum to learn how, I would be confused as hell and probably give up.
If you look at posts where some one says they know nothing about brewing, usually the firsts response goes something like, " read Palmer's, How to Brew "
No one says go to the Beginner"s Forum and read 65,284 topics.
Believe me I've learned a ton about brewing from the internet, but don't disregard books and magazines as useless or harmful information.

I generally agree also. I got interested in brewing and read Palmer's online book. There's nothing necessarily "wrong" in there it's more that it's inefficient I guess. Moving your beer to secondary after a week or so generally won't hurt anything (especially since most of us are properly obsessed with sanitation), it's just a step that doesn't HAVE to be done knowing what we know now. That saves time on a transfer and on cleaning an extra fermenter.
Before I started I also started exploring around HBT and you're right, definite information overload. I learn by doing, not as well by reading so I wasn't really ready for the advancements and improvements I was reading about on here until I got some extract and kit beers done in a Palmer-esque style under my belt. After that, my sciency brain started asking, "why do I do it this way, is there a better way," and then the topics on here and on Basic Brewing start making sense. Within a year I moved on to all grain BIAB.

Back on the topic of boil times. A lot of the talk has been about longer boils, but I think something that would go against the previous wisdom is the ability to do a 15 minute boil extract batch with late hopping and the fact that extract only needs a minimal boil. That was probably considered a big no-no 10-15 years ago. I haven't tried one yet, but it is an attractive option as I find my brewing opportunities harder and harder to come by.

 

[bovineblitz]

Confirmed?

Consensus of a large homebrew club, for example?

 

[theveganbrewer]

The end of this thread should be a massive HBT homebrew competition and the one winner will get a book published describing his or her techniques and opinions on the hobby.

 

[Pappers_]

P

The end of this thread should be a massive HBT homebrew competition and the one winner will get a book published describing his or her techniques and opinions on the hobby.

There has been a BJCP recognized HBT competition for the last few years. I'm sure there's a thread on last year's award winning beers.

Edit: here's the thread from 2011 https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f12/2011-hbt-bjcp-competition-winners-recipes-238903/

 

[iambeer]

And as to your asertion about 200 dollar professional text books out there with invalid, or plainly outdated information. Ask any professor of medicine if that 200 dollar surgery textbook written 30 years ago still has merit today.

The best thing to do is to take information, ANY INFORMATION, in and try it for yourself.

I never made that assertion. If you are doing to spend $200 on a professional book it's going to be the latest edition, not something from 20 years ago. That twenty year old edition is going to be in the dollar bin.

Trying things yourself is a good way but we don't have to reinvent the wheel. Learning everything without references is backwards thinking.

 

[bmeyer46]

as long as you sanitize, give your yeast something to eat, and don't dump the yeast into boiling wort, I think you will come out with alcohol...may not be good, but it will still be alcohol!
I brew what I like to drink, yeah, it's probably not award winning, but until I get to the point where I would think about competing, I'm fine with my beer.

 

[Whalewang]

A brilliant post. Clearly I don't read enough on the forum as the following are new news to me:

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.
Rev.

I've never done BIAB but I have put a paint strainer in my fermenting bucket and dumped the contents of the boil kettle into bucket and then lifted out the paint strainer (effectively trying to get as much wort out of the kettle as possible).

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.
Rev.

Triple decoctions suck. Are you telling me now that it was a wasted effort!?

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.
Rev.

I forgot about using it at 5 minute rather 15. Thanks for the reminder.

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.
Rev.

This seems kind of intuitive but I still (used) to wait.

Areas of interest for me coming out of this thread:
-Boil time lengths (what's the impact of 60 vs 120 minute boils)
-Mashing time length (can I cut this time down from 60 min? I don't have an iodine kit but I think I've read you can start sparging as soon as your wort becomes clear which I assume would almost always be less then 60 minutes.)

 

[Rev2010]

@whalewang - thank you for your positive comment on the thread! In regard to your decoction question - no not at all am I saying it's pointless, I was referencing a number of online posts I've read where people have done tests and have said they don't see a difference. Speaking on a scientific standpoint I can't see how boiling grains wouldn't make any difference but that is the point of this thread


Rev.

 

[iambeer]

Speaking on a scientific standpoint I can't see how boiling grains wouldn't make any difference but that is the point of this thread


Rev.

Just wondering how what you see (in this particular example if you would like) is scientific. Please let me know.

 

[Rev2010]

Just wondering how what you see (in this particular example if you would like) is scientific. Please let me know.

I never said I "see" anything in regard to this topic as scientific, again... hence the whole point of this thread. If everything in brewing were 100% scientific the methods and opinions wouldn't be changing so wildly. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. All I can say is from having done several double decoction hefeweizens I've noticed a definite increase in efficiency and also a better tasting beer. The "better tasting" part I can describe is slightly fuller/maltier/warmer tasting beer.


Rev.

 

[iambeer]

I never said I "see" anything in regard to this topic as scientific, again... hence the whole point of this thread. If everything in brewing were 100% scientific the methods and opinions wouldn't be changing so wildly. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. All I can say is from having done several double decoction hefeweizens I've noticed a definite increase in efficiency and also a better tasting beer. The "better tasting" part I can describe is slightly fuller/maltier/warmer tasting beer.


Rev.

Well, if you really want to know what I'm getting at it is this. You're hitting on the 'wild changes' of the last thirty years that is imparted by amateurs within the hobby community.

But I would be more careful with mixing that with a vigorous method spanning a tradition of centuries. There's a reason for these methods, even if a home brewer cannot scientifically validate it after a couple of trials.

 

[bovineblitz]

I never said I "see" anything in regard to this topic as scientific, again... hence the whole point of this thread. If everything in brewing were 100% scientific the methods and opinions wouldn't be changing so wildly. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. All I can say is from having done several double decoction hefeweizens I've noticed a definite increase in efficiency and also a better tasting beer. The "better tasting" part I can describe is slightly fuller/maltier/warmer tasting beer.


Rev.

I feel as though if we did apply scientific rigor to our processes, things actually would change faster because we'd have more to base our opinions on than we currently do.

I admit I was a bit confused by the way you used the phrase 'scientific standpoint', but kinda just brushed it off.

 

[Rev2010]

By scientific standpoint I mean if one double decocts there would be physical differences between that beer and one that is not decocted. People say decoction creates melanoidins for example. So, scientifically there should be some form of difference no? And if so then it's confusing to see a number of people do compares and not tell any difference. That's what I was getting at using the term scientific standpoint - meaning the physical changes or differences that would be present in a decocted vs non decocted beer.


Rev.

 

[moti_mo]

I think what iambeer is saying is that several people on a message board doing comparisons of decocted vs. non-decocted beers and claiming they can't tell a difference doesn't necessarily qualify as a scientifically rigorous study. It could, maybe...but you have no information on how well-controlled their comparisons were (i.e. rigorous control of variables), if they even know how to do the decoction correctly, and if their palates are sensitive enough to discern any differences that did arise, amongst a number of other uncertainties.

Its just important to draw a distinction between the scientific peer review process of rigorous, well-characterized experiments and the comparisons that tend to be discussed on a message board such as this, which tend to be (but are not always) more anecdotal than scientifically rigorous. I'm not taking anything away from this board, because it is a wonderful source of information, you just have to personally gauge how much confidence to put in certain statements/conclusions/etc. based on the fact that it is what it is - a public forum on the internet where anyone can discuss their experience with homebrewing.

 

[Rev2010]

I think what iambeer is saying is that several people on a message board doing comparisons of decocted vs. non-decocted beers and claiming they can't tell a difference doesn't necessarily qualify as a scientifically rigorous study.

I never said it was scientific I said there has to be some form of difference scientifically due to the different process and treatment of the grains/mash in a decocted beer vs. a single infusion. Though, you then have those that say they can't tell any difference. That's all, nothing more nothing less.


Rev.

 

[bovineblitz]

By scientific standpoint I mean if one double decocts there would be physical differences between that beer and one that is not decocted. People say decoction creates melanoidins for example. So, scientifically there should be some form of difference no? And if so then it's confusing to see a number of people do compares and not tell any difference. That's what I was getting at using the term scientific standpoint - meaning the physical changes or differences that would be present in a decocted vs non decocted beer.


Rev.

Scientifically, you would quantify the difference, not assume that it's true. You always start with a null hypothesis.

 

[remandsager]

...and even if 'scientifically' (or maybe more correctly, analytically) you can detect a difference chemically - that may not equate with being able to detect a difference sensorially. And you may be able to detect a difference where I may not - we all have differing abilities regarding taste & smell.

 

[Denny]

There are times when you also want kettle caramelization of the wort. A longer boil will give that to you

See, here's one to correct right now...caramelization doesn't happen until 360F and you'll never hit that in a kettle full of wort.

 

[Denny]

The best thing to do is to take information, ANY INFORMATION, in and try it for yourself.

http://gotgame.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/applause.gif

 

[Denny]

Keep in mind that melanoidins are a color, not a flavor.

 

[BulldogBrewer]

See, here's one to correct right now...caramelization doesn't happen until 360F and you'll never hit that in a kettle full of wort.

I'd love to see more analytical information about this - but google didn't turn up much more than forum discussions.

There is typically some color effect of a longer boil based on contact with the surface that the burner has direct contact with (I suspect from maillard vs. caramelization) - which is generally the reason to turn off the burner when adding liquid extract I believe.

 

[bovineblitz]

I'd love to see more analytical information about this - but google didn't turn up much more than forum discussions.

There is typically some color effect of a longer boil based on contact with the surface that the burner has direct contact with (I suspect from maillard vs. caramelization) - which is generally the reason to turn off the burner when adding liquid extract I believe.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the issue with extract is that it's not completely in solution, so you're actually scalding solid/not quite in solution material. In a 100% water solution there shouldn't be caramelization (MAYBE as you said there's some at the bottom of the kettle), but in a syrup/heated solid you'll definitely get some sort of caramelization/maillard reactions.

 

[SixStringBeer]

Keep in mind that melanoidins are a color, not a flavor.

Yes, but those melanoidins generally occur as a result of the maillard reaction, and I think it's safe to suggest where you find a change in colour you're probably also likely to find a change in flavour. The degree of change may be very subtle, but still.

 

[Denny]

Yes, but those melanoidins generally occur as a result of the maillard reaction, and I think it's safe to suggest where you find a change in colour you're probably also likely to find a change in flavour. The degree of change may be very subtle, but still.

I pretty much agree with you, but I wanted to point out that it's not the melanoidins themselves that create flavor. Most homebrewers don't realize that.

 

[oakbarn]

Anti -litical establishmentarianism: If Palmer ever wrote it, Do it!



If you try something that takes some time and cannot tell the difference, then do not do it unless you think it makes your process better.



Home brewing reminds me of what we said the USAF:

1. Measure with a micromometer.
2. Mark with a grease pencil.
3. Cut with an ax.

I had a Chemistry minor and likely there are changes that could be detected in different procedures. It may not however be detectable on YOUR palette.

I remember years ago National Geo had a smell test in one of the issues. My son and I smelled candy, SWMBO said it smelled like urine.

 

[cbehr]

One big thing I learned over my limited brewing time that contradicted the standard brewing view was that you don't need to chill your wort to a pitchable temp as quickly as possible. From my initial readings and talking to home brew employees they stressed the importance of chilling and how important wort chillers were in the process. From what I've read people in Australia have been doing the no chill method for years so I gave it a shot on my last 4 batches and must say I cannot tell a difference in the outcome!