Homebrewing a study in contradictions?

I've gotten used to the contradictory advice on forums like HBT. It is to be expected when you have so many people with different experiences and experience levels. We've all seen the threads that run:

"It's infected, dump it."
"No, it's not infected, bottle it."
"Yes, it's infected but it's a good thing, let it age."
"RDWHAHB."
"Everything clears up with enough time."
"No amount of time will fix that."

Sometimes they are just funny. However, even when looking at the professional and supposedly authoritative sources, the amount of contradiction can seem daunting.

I read everything I can get on brewing and on styles that I already brew or want to brew. It is expected in this hobby that you will get contradictions between authors and even between books by the same author. However, things get frustrating when you see contradictions in a single book, by a single author. I just finished reading Mitch Steele's (Stone Brewing) book on IPA. Early on, while discussing the history of IPA he speaks of how it was aged for a year to 18 months and that this aging added to its qualities (much of the time).

"Aging was critical, and it must have been carefully monitored by the brewers" (page 67). That and many other statements make one believe most, if not all, IPA must be aged.

Ok, that's fine. I made an IIPA that is 1.088. According to this and many other sources such a beer should be aged. I'm fine with that. I've made Scotch Ales, RISs, Winter Warmers, etc. that all needed considerable age and have no problem with this. I like to make big beers and even when I make a small beer it is often a parti-gyle pulled from a big beer that will age. I would also assume that at 1.088 my IIPA (a style that I am new at making) would also need to be aged. I think many on this forum would agree.

In the area on dry hopping he says, "Brewers comment frequently that the first flavor to go in an aged IPA is hop" (page 221). So now aging will reduce the hop flavor that seems so important to the style.

In the advice on brewing each of the styles for American IPA, he says "Drink fresh!" and for Double IPA, he says, "Drink young!" (Page 224, emphasis in the original).

So, I can only conclude that through the length of the book he says, "Age was a major and important part of making the hoppy style known as IPA, but aging will reduce hop flavor so don't age your IPAs. Huh?

In the end it is my beer and I will do with it what I want. So perhaps this is just venting. I can't be the only one who gets frustrated at getting contradictory answers and advice.

In the end it is my beer and I will do with it what I want. So perhaps this is just venting. I can't be the only one who gets frustrated at getting contradictory answers and advice.

Click to expand...

This is the final word on your beer. Find what works for you and run with it. In the end it is your beer and it should make you happy.

I see your frustration, but I would look at it historically. I think the IPA style has evolved. Originally, it took 8-12 months to make the journey to India and the hops and alcohol content were preservatives. Now with the more recent craft brew resurgence, I think the style is more about the hop flavoring - hence the drink it early comment.

The other posters hit it on the head, the style guidelines are just guidelines and not dogma, they are there for reference and ease in discussion of a subject flavor profile. All of the styles have evolved over time with the introduction of better technology, etc.

Perhaps the best way is the brew a 10 gallon batch so you can enjoy the fresh and aged versions.


-John

the ingredients, the process steps, the treatment and the beer itself changed a lot in the last centuries. In my opinion it's a big mistake try to replicate original recipe and procedure, the beers we drink today and what we aspect from them are completly different, so advice that may have sense (like aging an IPA) for one kind of product, are mistakes for others.

What I'm trying to tell is that you may find contradiction because they are referred to different kind of product we call in the same way. For example, if you made ad "authentic" IPA using only E.K.golding hops with water with SO4 level above 600ppm (like I've done last summer) you'll find that green beer has grassy flavor due to that kind of hops/water that some people may find not pleasent. By aging this kind of beer you'll end up with a very good English IPA. In this case aging is good. on the other hand if you whant A IIPA with lots of fruttiness, citrusy you may whant to use very soft water and american hops, and with this product the fresher you drink the best it is.

There so much involved in brewing process that it is impossible replicate the process of another brewer, so the best advice is what come out from your expirience.

You're missing out on a key aspect the historical IPAs. Brettanomyces and possible bacterial contamination was in all their pitching yeast. At that time in history the vinous flavor attributed to slight souring and brettanomyces was the result of a long secondary fermentation with these contaminate organisms, which is why "Aging was critical, and it must have been carefully monitored by the brewers". That's what I got out of the book.

You bring up an excellent subject, I think there are three factors here: 1. Beer has evolved with time. Science, especially the discoveries of Pasteur, has advanced hugely when you're looking at the history of beer. Being Lutheran, I have always been fascinated with the beers Luther drank such a prodigious quantity of, only to find out that compared to what we enjoy today, they probably wouldn't be very good. After all, in those days, a magic wood stick covered with "godisgood" turned wort into beer. Who knows what yeasts, bacteria, etc. were also growing on those paddles. 2. Brewers certainly have varying experience levels. One thing I like about this forum is that there are so many genuine experts, and the best of those are talented at gently correcting other's misstatements and errors (including, mea culpa, mine at times), bringing up the skill level in brewing for all of us. If we aren't here to make better beer, why would we follow the forum? 3. Tasting abilities are highly varied. Physically, some people have much more genetic aptitude palate-wise, so if you're not born with that talent, no amount of training will make you a top tier taster. Educationally, great beer requires a fairly profound understanding of process and "correct" flavors. There was a very expensive wine where the winery had a brett infection (very bad with wine, a major flaw). Some top tasters rated the wine highly, stating that it had unique spiciness and was therefore a better wine. True experts realized, regardless of personal preference, that the wine was factually flawed, so it should not be a highly scored wine. So, some hold beer to the highest technical requirements, and have the palate and understanding to do so. Others drink to what they enjoy, forget what the style or technical expertise in the brewing was.

So I guess the answer is that you can have passionate lovers of homebrewing, viewing the experience through vastly different facets. I am very passionate about what we love in beer, and I think that the most important thing is respecting what we do from whatever qualities we perceive in homebrew. As importantly, we should respect all those different approaches, as long as they come out of genuine desire to make great beer. Personally, a Blood Orange Tabasco IIPA sounds horrible (hey, I'd still try it, can't be worse than bull testicle stout), but I understand (barely) how someone wouldn't appreciate my beloved Belgo Quad with Cherries in Bourbon barrels.

Hope I didn't get too but this is an excellent discussion point!

Its funny you mention bretty wines. Many in the wine industry are coming to realize that signature flavor of some highly regarded regions is due to Brett. I find it to be snobbish or elitist to declare something bad even if it tastes good just because it has a contribution of flavor from something besides pure cultured yeast.

Also on the topic of Brett and IPA, as soon as I can get into my university's cryogenic freezer I am going to grow myself up some wyeast old ale blend. I plan on using that in a historic style IPA and age it in a barrel I have hopefully made fairly neutral by that time.

I havent read the IPA book, but i have heard him (Mitch) discuss it on various podcasts.

Regarding historical IPA's I have gathered that they were aged for a minimum of 8 months (from memory) before going on the boat. During this initial ageing period, there would be a second fermentation at some point. It might have been due to changes in season, ie when it started warming up after winter.

I also gather that pretty much all beer got aged before being shipped because the barrels had a tendency of exploding on the ship if they werent.

The IPA (and other beers) were dry hopped in the barrel as they left the warehouse to get shipped. And apparantly they used considerably more hops than even Stone use. Granted, it was probably fairly low AA%. So, you can age your ipa for a year or so if you want. IF you dry hop it before kegging...

Lastly, as many have mentioned, they almost certainly contained brett. Descriptions of the day (old timey beeradvocate?) described the IPA as effervescent.

I do not see what the OP mentioned as contradictory. Back in the day they did that... and now we do this... is not contradictory. They had good reasons for doing it that way back then. Much as we have good reasons to drink it fresh now etc.

I tend to agree on the conflicting or lack of evidence based research to guide us along. It seems to be a hoppy that is highly testimonial and individual experience driven. My education and background is in medicine which is steeped in evidence based research (it has to be).
From what I have seen this problem is getting better. You are seeing more and more home brewers with scientific backgrounds that are applying scientific theory to brewing. You are also seeing more credentialed education programs on brewing in higher education. Onward and upward.........

smokinghole said:

Its funny you mention bretty wines. Many in the wine industry are coming to realize that signature flavor of some highly regarded regions is due to Brett. I find it to be snobbish or elitist to declare something bad even if it tastes good just because it has a contribution of flavor from something besides pure cultured yeast.

Click to expand...

I had some wine a few weeks ago that most definitely had some brett in it. It was pretty nice. Though... I do love me some brett.

Their attitude is particularly odd when they have no problem with back sweetening, blending, acidifying, etc to improve taste.

My point is not so much to belittle a particular book or to ask advice on an IPA. It was a great book and very informative. Neither was it so much a demand for less contradiction and more uniformity--something that has already ruined American beer once. With my background and training I am pretty adept at working with texts and with statements/arguments to get to the meat of the discussion and pull out the pieces that are useful. The point was really about how hard it can be for someone to find a simple, "You want beer A then do steps a, b, c, and d" that everyone would agree on. I don't mind digging through reams of papers and piles of books looking for those nuggets of information--such activity has been my job, my hobby and my passion for over twenty years. When I read posts on HBT, I have no problem making my way through the less useful bits of advice to find the true gems from some of the more informed brewers. Neither would I want to silence the brewer who shares wrong advice. It is just that I see some of the blatant contradiction as pretty daunting for the new brewer.

I don't know how many times I've been in the LHBS and heard them tell customers information that is downright wrong. By this, I don't mean stuff that some say and others don't say, but stuff that no one who brews should say. I pity these new brewers because I remember, when I first started, the guy at the LHBS that I first got my gear from had graduate degrees related to brewing and chemical science and was very informative. The spread of homebrewing has been great, but sometimes I just shake my head at the downright silly advice that is given by the supposed experts. You quickly learn that some brewers have not gone far beyond the "I put this magic stick in the wort and it becomes beer" mentality. Funny thing is that the process works so effectively, even when done wrong, that they see the success as proof--"I put the stick in the wort and it became beer, so this proves the stick makes beer."

My background being in philosophy and logic just makes me look at my hobby and shake my head sometimes. In logic if I have the statement: "if A then B, and I know A is true then I can be certain B is true." In brewing if I know A is true, and someone tells me "if A then B" I may discover that B does not happen. Actually, now that I think about it this may even be part of what makes it attractive to me. There is so little that is sure in brewing that I needed something that was a bit more artistic. So who knows. I love the forums and I love reading about brewing. I also love experimenting with brews.

It's both frustrating and exciting. Frustrating because it can be hard to find out the exact reason things work (such as the debate about First Wort Hopping). And exciting because there is still room to further refine and develop the science behind it (such as the current thinking that adding hops to the kettle as you drain the wort over it actually changes the pH of the wort before the boil starts, which in turn affects both hop flavor and utilization of all the hops used in that batch, not just the FW hops).

cluckk said:

The point was really about how hard it can be for someone to find a simple, "You want beer A then do steps a, b, c, and d" that everyone would agree on.

.

Click to expand...

I'm 100% sure that if , for example, orvall gave you their recipe in details, and explain process and method they use to preduce their beer you wouldn't be able to replicate that beer. Not because you are doing wrong, but because the a, b, c and d that they suggest to you are concequences of many things that you can't control. So my advise is: forget about tricks or procedure, find your way and you will end up with better results. not because they are giving to you bad advise but because the work of a brewer (just like a cook ) is to get the best result with material, ingedients and system you have; and this include everything (water, yeast, brewing process, climates etc...).

And pay attention I'm no saying that reading that kind of book is a wasting of time, they are very helpful because they face to you every kind of aspect of brewing, and give you a background that will help you to end up with better beers

Sam, you're right. But telling someone, "I do this and end up with that," overlooking the fact that geometry and volume of equipment can cause things to turn out quite differently, is one thing. I am talking about the tendency in our hobby to hear person X say, "If you want A then do B," only to have person Y say, "If you want A then never do B." This isn't a problem with non-experts, but is problematic when some of the experts do this. It is not too much of a problem, mind you. It just takes effort and determination to wade through and find the information one needs. Yet, it does make our hobby and the results from it awfully hit and miss for someone just starting out--I would never want it to be an exact science, but that is often what new brewers want, or think it should be.

How many people starting out thinking the best place to start is by searching for "How to brew beer" on Youtube? I've watched some of those videos and just shake my head at many of them. Misinformation too often exceeds good useful advice, and the good stuff is often buried under a pile of rubbish.

Yes... I agree with you. There is a lot of bad advise/info out there but regarding the contradictions we have been talked about it is more relet with pro- homebrewing techniques than beginners.

Perhaps the contradictions are a result of brewing not really being a science. To be sure, there is a great deal of science in the brewing process, but there is also a great deal of artistry. And that is likely the source of (informed) contradictions. (I'm leaving aside the misinformation that comes from people who are genuinely uneducated or perverse enough to want to intentionally misguide others.) When talking about artistry and people's individual tastes, there is no right or wrong.