BeerBorg

I saw something like this in another forum. What's your opinion on homebrewing that runs counter to a lot of the popular opinion? It could be on ingredients, process, popular style trends, whatever. Just keep it civil. Everyone's opinion is valid, and as long as we're all brewing beer that makes us happy, no one is wrong.

I'll start it off.

I really don't have much use for all the science that seems so important to the homebrewing community at large. I have no idea what my water chemistry is; I don't know or care what my mash pH is. I'm brewing beer, not sending a rocket to the moon, and these things tend to take care of themselves, in my case.

I know that some people have such crummy municipal water, they wouldn't be able to brew without engineering their water. That's different, because you do what you have to do. But if I made a study of all the science it would seem more like work than a hobby. And I make beer that I really like.

I don't completely understand how an internal combustion engine works, either, but I don't let it stop me from driving my car.

My opinion is that the more strokes I took playing golf, the more value I got for my greens fee, on a shot-per-dollar basis.

Wait, you said homebrewing opinion! Let's see... It is my opinion that it's just fine to let wort cool overnight in a sealed keg.

1. Cold conditioning has value.
2. The type of sugar used to prime makes no difference in the final result.

1.
There's a theme that yeast stop doing anything below about 55F, so it's always best to bottle condition at room temperature until a few days before drinking.

I used that approach until I got stranded on a business trip and ended up leaving some beers in the fridge for a couple of weeks instead of a couple of days.

I did some studying and discovered that there are changes that happen due to the activity of the yeast and changes that are more chemical in nature. And even some of the changes that occur due to the yeast will continue at lower temperatures, just more slowly.

2.
Some people are convinced that corn sugar must be used for priming. Others swear by DME. Even some who use table sugar will say that it's important to use cane sugar instead of beet sugar.


It seems that whenever I mention my experiences with extended cold conditioning, I'm challenged. Those who challenge me give me lots of reasons why they think it won't help. But if I ask them how often they've tried it, the answer is always the same: never. So those who haven't done it will deny it works without even trying it.

As for different types of sugar for priming, I've used cane sugar, beet sugar, corn sugar, DME, honey. I've never seen any difference.

So when I say that cold conditioning makes a difference and sugar type doesn't, it's based on my experience, not on what I think is likely to be the case.

I agree.



Okay, I'll expand a little. I don't measure ph, or make water adjustments. Cold conditioning definitely makes a difference.
Emulating professional brewers is not necessary for home brewers. (gasp)

Airlocks are over rated and unnecessary. I'd brew sometimes in a Yorkshire square if I didn't have dogs and cats.

Traditional bittering additions are over rated and unnecessary if you use the right hops.

Boiling for the full duration of a traditional boil is over rated and unnecessary unless you need the boil to develop malt character.

I'm chill with nochill.

If you can get DMS or HSA to happen, more power to you, and you will have to teach me how to do it.

Random Brett infections are a good thing.

Glass Carboys are evil.

I only make water adjustments for very specific kinds of beer. 90% of the time I just use my tap water treated with Campden.

I generally could give a crap if I clone a beer exactly, and rarely even bother to try at all because really I could give a crap about that sort of thing. If I wanted a clone, I'd just buy the beer.

Overthinking things is fun, but still just overthinking.

--I have never done a single water adjustment of any kind.
--Ballpark my brew day numbers. Rarely do I hit anything precise.
--I don't do starters.
--I always use a 5 gallon mash volume regardless of beer style, amount of grains, water:grain ratio, etc. just fill it to the rim to hold temp.

--I still have a few (not many, but a few) medals hanging around here for some of my beers.

I'm also not at all interested in "making the best beer I can!" because someone is offering a course or trying to sell a piece of equipment. If I painted landscapes as a hobby, they wouldn't be nearly on a par with a professionally trained artist, either; I would be doing it because I find it fun and relaxing, not because I'm trying to get whatever the best result might be (which is a relative and subjective abstract anyway).

Totally agree on the priming sugar, bpgreen. On the MB forum, I posted the results of crunching some numbers, and the percentage of sugar per bottle is so minuscule, it couldn't possibly have an impact on taste, carbonation level, mouthfeel, ABV, or anything else the human body can perceive. It would be like adding three grains of 40L to a 12 pound grain bill and expecting it to completely change the beer.

I tried yeast washing, and it's more trouble than it's worth for me.

I'm pretty much in line with all of that.
And I just realized, we're a bunch of slackers!

I'm certainly interested in making the best beer that I can... with caveats, as Dave mentioned. I try to get the best results I can with everything I do, but I have my limits in knowledge, technology, and time. I buy and use beer gadgets because I like gadgets of nearly any sort. Many of them make my brew day easier, but I didn't buy them because I made bad beer without them. Come to think of it, there have been one or two brews that were stinkers even with the gadgets!

We had this discussion at work last week, as the management told us (again) that we must "strive for excellence" when we all know that many times good is a pretty damn lofty goal. I said "Excelleeeeent!" and we all broke out our air guitars, a la Bill and Ted's Wyld Stallyns. I was surprised the youngsters caught the reference so quickly.

I get a little irked by people who count every penny when it comes to their supplies and equipment, too. Nothing wrong with saving money, but if that's the reason you're washing yeast or digging up sketchy kegerators from Craigslist, you've lost me. Hobbies are going to cost money, unless your hobby is saving money. I know I can buy the ingredients for ten gallons of beer for maybe 60 bucks or so, and that's pretty darn good. But I'm not going to calculate the cost of the house electricity, gas, water, and the time (as if I'm being paid an hourly wage to homebrew). The nice thing is, the cost of all my equipment gets amortized into every batch I brew, so it's probably already paid for itself, if you want to look at it that way.

This opinion may not be unpopular,but people that think they know everything tend to peeve me.NOONE knows it all,and I don't like people correcting me if I don't agree with what they say or do. I use my own tap water to brew with. I use Domino Dots to bottle carb with.I brew 2.5 gallon extract batches with steeped grains. Some one on a forum said that if they get a less than spectacular batch,they mix it.I do that.I had a Cerveza that had very little taste.Got myself one of those squeeze limes and added it.Was good.Brewed a Porter.Too bitter,mixed it with cream soda.Was good. I use V-8 juice often to mix with the lighter beers to beef them up if they are lacking something.I did have a batch that had the nail-polish taste,so it went down the drain.I don't care for people that belittle Mr.Beer,BrewDemon and other kits. For me they make beer that tastes good to me.I may have said it before on here,that when I have my first pour of a brew, I have a Miller Lite there also. I take a taste of it first and then my brew.If my brew is better,it's a win for me. Don't need to brew super good brews.Just ones good enough to drink.I'm the only one who drinks it so my opinons are moot. So my fellow Borg,brew on.Cheers.

The above post receives a standing ovation!!!!

FedoraDave wrote:I saw something like this in another forum. What's your opinion on homebrewing that runs counter to a lot of the popular opinion?

I think I have a few..
1} I don't mind to use a secondary and see usefulness in doing it sometimes and do it often but not every time.
2} I use a hop spider and muslin bag during the boil. Have commando but went back to the bag....
3} I take a SG/OG reading but I don't use the hydo. with multiple consecutive readings to see if the batch is done. I just give it time and it will be done, back to another reason why I secondary. Sometimes I take a reading at the rack, but always take a FG.
4} A yeast starter is good but not always needed and a good starter can be made without a stir plate, but having a stir plate is a good thing also.
5} re-hydrating dry yeast is not usually needed, but have done it before both ways on certain yeast strains and have seen an improvement (read small) in the performance.

FedoraDave wrote: Everyone's opinion is valid, and as long as we're all brewing beer that makes us happy, no one is wrong.

100% agree with that...........

It's still fun to geek out and overthink things. You just don't NEED to. You can make really good beer without it.

"Share your unpopular opinion"....Inkleg has nice legs.



Interestingly enough, I also agree with most posts here so far. Although I don't "irked" by people that crunch numbers and manage them. I'm guessing that was a stronger word than you meant to use, Dave?

If anything I would say that it's not necessary to ferment for 2-3 weeks. Pitch enough yeast, control temps and use other good practices and your beer *can* be ready to bottle or keg in 5 days (or less). I've occasionally gone back to 2-3 weeks to see if it makes a difference in my beers and it doesn't*.


*I would not recommend this to new brewers, however. If you are reading this (or most things in this thread), it's sometimes best to keep to the 'standards' before wondering off the ranch.

Cheers.