Busting the bubble on 10 beer myths

[LouieMacGoo]

10 myths busted

Interesting read. Some of these I knew already.

[Beer-lord]

#2----I've always called my stouts, 'Breakfast in a glass' as a reason to drink them early in the day. Seems I was on to something.

[FedoraDave]

I have a friend who calls beer (especially darker, heavier ones) "liquid bread."

He's probably not far off the mark.

[lindseywinstead]

"No. 4. The shaker pint is an abomination..."

As an avid wine, cocktail, and beer enjoyer [I do not feel qualified to call myself a "connoisseur"; I know what I like, and that is all that matters to me], I must admit that I think the "glassware" discussion gets a bit overly-involved at times. My personal experience dictates that, yes, glassware can make a remarkable difference in the beverage experience. However, a good cocktail/beer/wine will be a good cocktail/beer/wine no matter the vessel. If you care about subtle nuisances, this is an important detail. But in the long run, for the average "Joe", be it shaker pint, Mason jar, or Solo cup, let us agree with the article: "Use whatever glassware you’ve got—anything is better than drinking straight from the bottle..."

[Kealia]

Agreed.

Along those lines, though - if anybody is wondering what to get me for Christmas:

[jimjohson]

I usually use one of my cheap wally world glasses. Don't want to have an accident with one of the good ones

untitled.png (16.71 KiB) Viewed 275 times

[mashani]

Although I would not disagree with the "Not All Beers Were Sour" one in total, I would reword it to "Beer was often good to drink young. But many beers got sour if the sat around too long before they got consumed".

Because that's what all the writing I've read from the 16-1700's really says happened. Yeah people knew that using the krausen from another beer, especially one that came from another beer that came out pretty good and was used in that beer tended to make better beer, because it was full of lots more yeast and less "other stuff". Yeah they knew ways to try to minimize pre-pitching infections. Yeah they figured out the right mash temps (not by measuring temperature as they had no thermometrs, but by "feel" and working out how much boiling water to add to the cool water for best results) through trial and error to avoid getting a sour mash effect.

But the best way they found was lager yeast and aging in lagering caves because beer bugs don't like it that cold - *that* is why lager was a revolution in beer and everyone liked it so much more then Ale back in the day.

But no matter what else they did to minimize, especially at ale temps, they had no way of keeping "other stuff" out of what they pitched to the level we do today. That other stuff makes flavors, be it funky brett stuff or sour or what not, even if introduced in small quantities, especially if left to age. Some batches would be better then others and have a longer shelf life, especially if they got on a good role of krausen repitiching from a good batch.

But their real answer was to drink it really soon after it was made. Which is what they did. Large Elizabethan households brewed and consumed mass quantities of small beer.

There is no doubt in my mind that modern homebrewers dump many batches of beer that folks back then would have consumed happily, due to some perceived "offness" like a slight amount of tart/sour flavor or weird funk, or phenols or diacetyl or other stuff.

IE when they talk about "sour" they mean it, not the kinds of little flaws we bitch about today.

It's all a matter of perspective.