Equipment question and humble brag

[Blackdirt_cowboy]

I am only 8 brews deep into my young brewing career. The first brew was extract. After that I moved to all grain and made my own recipes. So far, I’ve only enjoyed the beers myself. I thought all but one of my beers were great and the one that wasn’t great was still pretty good. But I’m biased. I made the beer so of course I like it.

This weekend we hosted a Christmas party for my wife’s family. It’s the first time I’ve shared my beer with anyone, and I was confident, but quite nervous. Her family is the type to tell you exactly what they think, and they did. They told me my beer was just as good as any craft beer they’d had, and left me with the empty kegs to prove it!!!

That brings me to my equipment question. If you saw my equipment, you would laugh. I have one 10 gallon pot, a propane burner, and 72 quart rectangular Coleman cooler mash tun. I ferment in a plastic bucket and have a small chest freezer for temp control as I mostly brew lagers. My plastic bucket doubles as my hot liquor tank. How in the world can I expect any consistency when I brew a recipe for the second time? I need some advice on upgrading my equipment to where I can confidently reproduce my beers.

Sure, I could go out and buy a brew magic or some other system, but I’d like to keep any upgrades as budget friendly as possible(read cheap). So, how do you achieve consistency in your brews?

 

[brewcat]

You don't need to upgrade. Maybe buy a dedicated HLT and/or fermenter? Otherwise you have what you need and should be able to reproduce your beers. Consistency comes from knowing your system and recipe.

So I'll go with kegging.

 

[MrBJones]

It seems to me that you have about the same setup as quite a few others; you should be able to achieve a good degree of repeatability with it. The only thing I might suggest - without laying out big bucks - is to get a cooler for your HLT, so as to hold your sparge water's temperature.
(Assuming you have a wort chiller, and other lesser but still important items)

 

[logdrum]

I am only 8 brews deep into my young brewing career. The first brew was extract. After that I moved to all grain and made my own recipes. So far, I’ve only enjoyed the beers myself. I thought all but one of my beers were great and the one that wasn’t great was still pretty good. But I’m biased. I made the beer so of course I like it.

This weekend we hosted a Christmas party for my wife’s family. It’s the first time I’ve shared my beer with anyone, and I was confident, but quite nervous. Her family is the type to tell you exactly what they think, and they did. They told me my beer was just as good as any craft beer they’d had, and left me with the empty kegs to prove it!!!

That brings me to my equipment question. If you saw my equipment, you would laugh. I have one 10 gallon pot, a propane burner, and 72 quart rectangular Coleman cooler mash tun. I ferment in a plastic bucket and have a small chest freezer for temp control as I mostly brew lagers. My plastic bucket doubles as my hot liquor tank. How in the world can I expect any consistency when I brew a recipe for the second time? I need some advice on upgrading my equipment to where I can confidently reproduce my beers.

Sure, I could go out and buy a brew magic or some other system, but I’d like to keep any upgrades as budget friendly as possible(read cheap). So, how do you achieve consistency in your brews?

Take detailed notes & refer to them often.

 

[ancientmariner52]

Seems to me you have everything you need, with one exception. You have control of everything except the crush of your grain. Even a cheapo Corona or Victoria mill will do.

Yes, it requires more effort to control temps with a simple outfit, but brewers have done it for thousands of years, with much simpler equipment than you have.

 

[Blackdirt_cowboy]

Well, I forgot to mention I mill my own grains, too. It just seemed to me that my setup was primitive. I see all the shiny brew systems and conical fermenters, and I thought I might be missing out on something. It’s reassuring to know that my system is similar to so many others.

I like the idea of an extra cooler for a HLT. I think that might make my brew days go a little smoother. Thanks for all the reassurance, and if anyone has any more ideas, I’m all ears.

 

[ancientmariner52]

If I find anything shiny on my system, I scuff it up with 80 grit. Might give away my position.

Seriously, it's like deer hunting. There's all kinds of super duper semi auto rifles with all kinds of super duper scopes, but lever action 30-30 carbines have killed more deer than the rest of them combined. Simple ain't bad.

 

[Jtk78]

I have pretty similar equipment as you, only X 2, so I can brew two batches staggered. I do have a 10g water cooler for a HLT. the one thing that seemed to make the last brew day go smoother (first time I used it) was a chugger pump. I was able to pump my water up to my HLT, then used it to whirlpool during chilling. No more lifting the full HLT up to get it above the mash tun, and chilling time decreased. I'll also use it for whirlpool hop additions, which were not in the recipes I brewed this past time. I bought the pump used, but did add camlock fittings to all of the connections I have. I also made the whirlpool arm out of a prechiller I was using before. Worked like a charm. I've spent plenty on this hobby in other items, said pump, camlocks, temp controllers, freezer conversions for fermentation, kegging, cooler conversions, ph meter, etc, that I couldn't justify dropping big money on a shiney stainless fermenter that really does the same thing my Fermonsters do. Ask me in a couple years though, and that may change.

 

[mongoose33]

You can spend a ton of money on shiny stuff, and not necessarily brew better beer.

I'm a big believer in Continuous Quality Improvement. That is, every time you brew, try to do something better. Follow best practices as best you can, getting closer each time to a "perfect" brew day.

The things that moved me fastest to consistency were fermentation control, controlling my crush, getting the water (and mash pH) right, and getting oxygen out of the process following fermentation. You've got the first two in place; how are you on the latter two?

There are a host of things you can do to improve if you're of a mind to do that. Starters for liquid yeast or rehydrating dry yeast. Oxygenating the wort. Stirring the mash at 15 and 30 minutes (pretty easy, that one).

Over time, I've found I can repeat recipes pretty closely, and that's a result of dialing in the process. Part of that is getting the mash temps correct, part getting the mash pH correct. If I can do that, the rest of the process is pretty repeatable. Wort boils at 210 degrees, pretty much every time. I can control when the hops go in. There's a bit of an adjustment depending on the alpha acids in the hops, which changes year to year, but that can be adjusted.

I've been doing BIAB (used to do traditional mash tun), and the hardest part has been to dial in the mash temps. I'm boiling over a Hellfire burner which retains a lot of heat after I turn it off. I've had to adjust for that--stopping my heating of strike water a couple degrees short of my target knowing it'll still warm a bit more from the Hellfire.

 

[SoCal-Doug]

I'm a big believer in Continuous Quality Improvement. That is, every time you brew, try to do something better. Follow best practices as best you can, getting closer each time to a "perfect" brew day.

^^^ You wont find a better brewing concept than that!

I have friends with systems way more ghetto than yours and they kick out some premium tasty beers! Learn the processes and your system. Learn and apply the chemistry and biology. Learn to control your brewing to achieve what you want. Study the grains, yeasts, hops and adjuncts. Become the master (well, that might be impossible, we all keep learning every day, but you get the idea)

Screw all the bling. My $50 Sanke kegs converted to keggles, are made out of the same 304 stainless steel as the most expensive kettles and are twice as thick. They don't shine as much, but shine doesn't make the beer taste better and shine wont make be a better brewer.

FWIW, the brew magic is an excellent system and broke many molds in the hobby (ive used them) but they are also very "yesterday". If you do decide to upgrade in the future, there are many better options for thousands less.

 

[aprichman]

I've switched to doing BIAB and can't imagine ever switching back. Being able to knock out a brew including clean up in less than 5 hours is invaluable to me. I feel the same way about kegs. If I had to recommend 2 upgrades to anyone it would be doing BIAB and ditching the bottles for a keg.

 

[PADave]

I've switched to doing BIAB and can't imagine ever switching back. Being able to knock out a brew including clean up in less than 5 hours is invaluable to me. I feel the same way about kegs. If I had to recommend 2 upgrades to anyone it would be doing BIAB and ditching the bottles for a keg.

Same here. I went from extract to BIAB and don't plan on changing. Same with kegs, resisted for the longest time, went to a single keg setup, and now building a 4 tap keezer.

To the OP, no matter how you brew, keep good notes. Sounds like you already have most of the equipment. And like mongoose33 said, always try to make things better.

 

[Blackdirt_cowboy]

The things that moved me fastest to consistency were fermentation control, controlling my crush, getting the water (and mash pH) right, and getting oxygen out of the process following fermentation. You've got the first two in place; how are you on the latter two?

I use RO water and use Bru’nwater to make my salt addditions, so I have that down. The one area that I don’t do anything is oxygen. I just make sure to splash the wort a ton to oxygenate prior to pitching the yeast. Post fermentation, I siphon the beer over to a keg being sure to keep the end of the hose submerged to avoid oxygenation. I don’t do any closed, pressurized transfers or purging of the keg prior to filling. Is this something I should look into changing?

 

[mongoose33]

I use RO water and use Bru’nwater to make my salt addditions, so I have that down. The one area that I don’t do anything is oxygen. I just make sure to splash the wort a ton to oxygenate prior to pitching the yeast. Post fermentation, I siphon the beer over to a keg being sure to keep the end of the hose submerged to avoid oxygenation. I don’t do any closed, pressurized transfers or purging of the keg prior to filling. Is this something I should look into changing?

IMO, yes. This is part of the Continuous Quality Improvement approach--keep finding places to do it better. That and O2 are probably the two places you should look next, unless you're not doing a starter or rehydrating.

Once you figure out how to do the closed-loop thing, it's not that hard. It helps a lot if you have an extra keg. After the first time it's faster. I have a keg filled with Star-San. It's the next keg I'll rack beer to. I push out that star san into another keg (using a jumper, a 2-foot or so piece of tubing with liquid QDs on each side). I connect the jumper (out to out), then push the star-san into the empty keg.

I have the lid of the receiving keg off. I watch, and when the Star-san is at the top, you'll start getting CO2 bubbles up from the dip tube. I keep connecting/disconnecting the jumper to control that, otherwise, you'll have a bunch of overflowing bubbling star-san on the floor. I put the lid in the opening so the bubbles--which contain CO2 btw--can completely cover the underside of the lid. That's the part that is impossible to clear of air unless you do it this way. With the bubbles still coming out, I then affix the lid in place. This means that I now have purged all the air from the headpace, save for the tiny bit in the IN downtube. All the bubbles are full of CO2. The pic below shows this, I'll have even more bubbling coming out of the top.

Meanwhile, the "donor" keg is empty of Star-San, and full of CO2. I'll take this to the sink and put a liquid QD connected to tubing on it, and using the residual pressure, blow out any dregs of star-san. Bingo! Purged keg.

Then it's just a matter of racking into that purged keg. I like to feed the displaced CO2 back into the top of the fermenter. I'm using a cut-off airlock on top, but that's just what I had which fit the available tubing. I now use some 5/16" silicone tubing and rigid tube going through a drilled stopper.

 

[MapleGroveAleworks]

There's nothing wrong at all with your equipment. I have been brewing for 6 years and have something similar enough to you.

Humble brag myself, I've entered 3 large competitions with 10 entries total and received 3 gold medals and 2 bronze, all with the same type setup as you have. Shiny expensive stuff doesn't make good beer, proper practices and attention to detail do. They do make things easier and more convenient at times though I will say that. But I wouldn't worry about it. Just focus on making good beer.

 

[kh54s10]

If you get another pot and burner for your HLT, your rig would be almost the same as mine. I don't really concern myself with repeat-ability too much since I have done one beer 5 times and another 4 times but making alterations each time.

So in essence none of my 94 brews have been truly repeated.

 

[mongoose33]

IHow in the world can I expect any consistency when I brew a recipe for the second time? I need some advice on upgrading my equipment to where I can confidently reproduce my beers.

I've been thinking some more about this. The place you start w/ brewing a recipe a second time is to see if it's the same as the first time. Just do it. There are some brewers who will never brew the same recipe twice; I don't see how you can improve as a brewer if every time you change the recipe. I have a theory that many of the "never repeat a recipe" brewers are actually afraid to find out their process isn't very repeatable; by never brewing the same recipe twice, they never to have risk finding out that their process is....flawed.

But I digress. When you brew the same recipe a second time, focus on hitting your numbers. Try to get the mash pH right, the mash temp right, make sure you're consistent with your crush.

If you're being careful with how you do things, you should be able to closely duplicate the recipe. If you're brewing another try at a beer that didn't turn out, then I presume you have some ideas as to what was wrong with the process and you're changing those.

**************

I recently did an experiment w/ Brewtan-B. I needed two identical batches differing only by the presence or absence of BtB. I couldn't just split a big batch as the BtB goes in the mash as well as the boil.

So I brewed them sequentially. A tough problem because the day warmed up as I went from one to the next, meaning the mash temp wouldn't drop as much as the second one, plus I needed to hit mash temp, pH, and gravity.

The two were mashed at temps differing by only .7 degrees F. That was checked with a ThermoWorks Thermapen IV. The pH for the control was, IIRC, 5.33; for the BtB batch, 5.29. That didn't bother me--BtB contains tannic acid, and thus might be expected to lower the pH a bit. The gravities going into the boil differed by .005, a number checked by refractometer; frankly, the lines are a bit fuzzy and the two batches may have really been virtually identical.

The timing of hop additions, water amendments, chilling, etc. was carefully monitored and controlled. I was as convinced as I ever have been that the two batches were indistinguishable, save for the BtB. Which was the point.

Now, here's the kicker: if you're not recording all the above each time, you can't expect to gain consistency. You can only match what you measure. Take careful notes. I've appended one of mine below. I no longer record things like "stir at 15- and 30-minutes" because I always do that, nor things like "oxygenated the wort" for the same reason. But early on, I did.

The better your notes, the greater will be your ability to repeat. And when you can do that, your process is settling down.

 

[chris000]

...
There are some brewers who will never brew the same recipe twice; I don't see how you can improve as a brewer if every time you change the recipe. I have a theory that many of the "never repeat a recipe" brewers are actually afraid to find out their process isn't very repeatable; by never brewing the same recipe twice, they never to have risk finding out that their process is....flawed.
....
View attachment 550355

good point.
but let's add to that:
a) there are people who never try out things; they stick religiously to a recipe/process and don't know why. so if one believes in continues improvement you need to do thing different and observe the outcome.
b) but to make things worse, most of us don't brew 100 batches a year; so there is a tendency to add too many "improvements" at once
c) we are all bias; and one big pitfall is that it is so convenient to make conclusions based on how we memorized the taste/flavor of a beer we brewed half a year ago. side-by-side comparison (incl. split batches) are the way to go if you want to be able to quantify the impact of what you do

as others have said, notes are important. I recently started to write all parameters down that I'm aiming for and then I make sure I record the reality; i.e. all the little deviations that happened and we like to believe they don't matter.

 

[brewcat]

I've switched to doing BIAB and can't imagine ever switching back. Being able to knock out a brew including clean up in less than 5 hours is invaluable to me. I feel the same way about kegs. If I had to recommend 2 upgrades to anyone it would be doing BIAB and ditching the bottles for a keg.

I can brew that fast on my 3 vessel. The only advantage of BIAB is less equipment. But I don't want to mess with a bag, so for me it has zero advantages.

 

[mongoose33]

good point.
but let's add to that:
a) there are people who never try out things; they stick religiously to a recipe/process and don't know why. so if one believes in continues improvement you need to do thing different and observe the outcome.

True, but they're not the ones to whom I was referring.

b) but to make things worse, most of us don't brew 100 batches a year; so there is a tendency to add too many "improvements" at once

Well, that's a mistake, IMO, one I've fallen victim to myself. But if they're brewing the same recipe and making changes trying to dial it in, they're not the ones to whom I was referring.

c) we are all bias; and one big pitfall is that it is so convenient to make conclusions based on how we memorized the taste/flavor of a beer we brewed half a year ago. side-by-side comparison (incl. split batches) are the way to go if you want to be able to quantify the impact of what you do

Even if that's what they're doing, they're at least trying to dial in a recipe. They're not the ones to whom I was referring.

 

[mongoose33]

I can brew that fast on my 3 vessel. The only advantage of BIAB is less equipment. But I don't want to mess with a bag, so for me it has zero advantages.

I used to do the traditional mash tun, then got a bigger kettle and a Wilserbag. I wanted to test out BIAB before I drew any conclusions.

That was back in....January? Maybe February? Anyway, probably 20 batches ago. I'm still doing BIAB. It's simpler. It results in an easier cleanup. And while I have to dump the spent grain out of the bag and then invert it to rinse it off prior to putting in the laundry, it's about a 3 minute job.

To each his own. Brewing, IMO, should be fun and satisfying, and however people reach those goals, I'm for it.

 

[aprichman]

Cleaning out the mash tun and sparging (batch or fly) is going to add time to your brew day. BIAB is going to be faster than a 3 tier by those virtues alone.

 

[PADave]

I can brew that fast on my 3 vessel. The only advantage of BIAB is less equipment. But I don't want to mess with a bag, so for me it has zero advantages.

Not sure how much messing with a bag others do, but mine takes a couple rinses with the hose and done.

 

[brewcat]

Not sure how much messing with a bag others do, but mine takes a couple rinses with the hose and done.

Same with my mash tun. Bonus it is chiller water. I hated using a bag when I did partial mashes. Doesn't matter. Both ways make beer.

 

[brewshki]

IMO, yes. This is part of the Continuous Quality Improvement approach--keep finding places to do it better. That and O2 are probably the two places you should look next, unless you're not doing a starter or rehydrating.

Once you figure out how to do the closed-loop thing, it's not that hard. It helps a lot if you have an extra keg. After the first time it's faster. I have a keg filled with Star-San. It's the next keg I'll rack beer to. I push out that star san into another keg (using a jumper, a 2-foot or so piece of tubing with liquid QDs on each side). I connect the jumper (out to out), then push the star-san into the empty keg.

View attachment 550352
I have the lid of the receiving keg off. I watch, and when the Star-san is at the top, you'll start getting CO2 bubbles up from the dip tube. I keep connecting/disconnecting the jumper to control that, otherwise, you'll have a bunch of overflowing bubbling star-san on the floor. I put the lid in the opening so the bubbles--which contain CO2 btw--can completely cover the underside of the lid. That's the part that is impossible to clear of air unless you do it this way. With the bubbles still coming out, I then affix the lid in place. This means that I now have purged all the air from the headpace, save for the tiny bit in the IN downtube. All the bubbles are full of CO2. The pic below shows this, I'll have even more bubbling coming out of the top.

Meanwhile, the "donor" keg is empty of Star-San, and full of CO2. I'll take this to the sink and put a liquid QD connected to tubing on it, and using the residual pressure, blow out any dregs of star-san. Bingo! Purged keg.

View attachment 550354

Then it's just a matter of racking into that purged keg. I like to feed the displaced CO2 back into the top of the fermenter. I'm using a cut-off airlock on top, but that's just what I had which fit the available tubing. I now use some 5/16" silicone tubing and rigid tube going through a drilled stopper.

View attachment 550353

We are all living and you sir are in 3017. I have seen your entire process of purging the keg and then racking the beer in through the out tube before. after hearing about it again in detail from Brulosophy, I adopted the same technique. However, I just open the PRV and let the excess CO2 escape so the beer will flow. I never though about hooking up a gas out and feeding that air back into the fermenter. that seems like a great way to use the CO2 in the keg and I feel like that would actually help push the beer into the keg. I ferment in a plastic carboy, so I have to push it out with a sterile siphon. this isn't normally a big deal, but sometimes it is really hard to blow into that thing. pushing the air from the keg back into the carboy for me would add a small amount of pressure that I bet would help push the beer. this is sick. thanks man!!!

 

[kh54s10]

Just do it. There are some brewers who will never brew the same recipe twice; I don't see how you can improve as a brewer if every time you change the recipe. I have a theory that many of the "never repeat a recipe" brewers are actually afraid to find out their process isn't very repeatable; by never brewing the same recipe twice, they never to have risk finding out that their process is....flawed.

I have never done exactly the same recipe twice for a couple of reasons.
One is that there are so many different beers to brew.
Another is that the ones that I have brewed something mostly the same, I made changes to try to make the beer better. The one that I did 5 time was better 4 of those 5 times and the fifth was just different.

I am not afraid that my process is not very repeatable, it may suffer.
But I don't really care since I consider 90% of my beers to be very good to excellent, 8% above average, and 2% are only decent or not so good. In 94 batches I made 2 bad batches, both were extreme. One very high gravity that was super sweet and the other was highly hopped and looked like pea soup even after a few months. Never even tasted that one. Who knows?

 

[Sadu]

IMO repeating the same recipes over again is how you get to the best beer. Sure you can get lucky on a recipe sometimes but when you brew a beer 5 times taking good notes and making tweaks each time it ALWAYS comes out better. Of course variety is good too, but its the little changes that take a beer from good to great. Even swapping the brand of coffee in a coffee stout can make all the difference in the world. Little things.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

I am only 8 brews deep into my young brewing career. The first brew was extract. After that I moved to all grain and made my own recipes. So far, I’ve only enjoyed the beers myself. I thought all but one of my beers were great and the one that wasn’t great was still pretty good. But I’m biased. I made the beer so of course I like it.

This weekend we hosted a Christmas party for my wife’s family. It’s the first time I’ve shared my beer with anyone, and I was confident, but quite nervous. Her family is the type to tell you exactly what they think, and they did. They told me my beer was just as good as any craft beer they’d had, and left me with the empty kegs to prove it!!!

That brings me to my equipment question. If you saw my equipment, you would laugh. I have one 10 gallon pot, a propane burner, and 72 quart rectangular Coleman cooler mash tun. I ferment in a plastic bucket and have a small chest freezer for temp control as I mostly brew lagers. My plastic bucket doubles as my hot liquor tank. How in the world can I expect any consistency when I brew a recipe for the second time? I need some advice on upgrading my equipment to where I can confidently reproduce my beers.

Sure, I could go out and buy a brew magic or some other system, but I’d like to keep any upgrades as budget friendly as possible(read cheap). So, how do you achieve consistency in your brews?

Other than the HLT (I use a 5G beverage cooler we already had), I use the same type of gear and I've brewed some excellent beers (so say my serious beer snob friends and a couple judges at a comp I entered). Why upgrade at this point? There is nothing about your system that prevents consistency unless you lack a quality thermometer.

 

[kylevester]

Upgrading usually means more equipment. So, my advice is IF you upgrade then make sure to keep ALL of your equipment in one place and have a dedicated brewing space. The main reason I've not brewed as much in the last three years as prior is because I've had to keep stuff in the basement and brew in the garage (Chicago winters suck when brewing outdoors). Keeping it simple will save time, money, and effort while giving you just as good of beer.

I've spent a LOT of money on upgrades and changes. You can easily get stuck chasing the next thing you want to add and spend gobs of money. I put together a RIMS, but haven't used it for over a year now due to the extra cleaning, set-up, pump frustrations, etc. Over the last year, I simplified my system and brew days. And my beer hasn't degraded in quality.

 

[pigroaster]

Great points! Great attitude to brewing! It is what is on the inside that counts: clean and sanitized!

You can spend a ton of money on shiny stuff, and not necessarily brew better beer.

I'm a big believer in Continuous Quality Improvement. That is, every time you brew, try to do something better. Follow best practices as best you can, getting closer each time to a "perfect" brew day.

The things that moved me fastest to consistency were fermentation control, controlling my crush, getting the water (and mash pH) right, and getting oxygen out of the process following fermentation. You've got the first two in place; how are you on the latter two?

There are a host of things you can do to improve if you're of a mind to do that. Starters for liquid yeast or rehydrating dry yeast. Oxygenating the wort. Stirring the mash at 15 and 30 minutes (pretty easy, that one).

Over time, I've found I can repeat recipes pretty closely, and that's a result of dialing in the process. Part of that is getting the mash temps correct, part getting the mash pH correct. If I can do that, the rest of the process is pretty repeatable. Wort boils at 210 degrees, pretty much every time. I can control when the hops go in. There's a bit of an adjustment depending on the alpha acids in the hops, which changes year to year, but that can be adjusted.

I've been doing BIAB (used to do traditional mash tun), and the hardest part has been to dial in the mash temps. I'm boiling over a Hellfire burner which retains a lot of heat after I turn it off. I've had to adjust for that--stopping my heating of strike water a couple degrees short of my target knowing it'll still warm a bit more from the Hellfire.

 

[sjfischr]

I think that the biggest takeaways from this discussion so far focus on simplicity (such as BIAB) and careful management of brew day changes.

Similar to BIAB, sometimes I’ve made larger grain bills (higher gravity) which makes BIAB a challenge. I recently moved to No Sparge mashing and it’s resulted in no noticeable flavor differences. I lose a few points in efficiency but gain almost an hour on brew day—well worth the sacrifice IMHO.

 

[Blackdirt_cowboy]

This has been a great discussion so far. I was under the impression that I needed to have some shiny, whizzbang setup in order to produce repeatable beers. It looks Ike I need to keep doing exactly what I’m doing, which is paying attention to detail. I have most of the main things down already - sanitation, water, temp control. I’ve dialed my system in where I am consistent getting 99% conversion efficiency on most beers. Big beers will drop to 90% or so. My brewhouse efficiency is consistently 75%. I think one area I can improve is oxygen. I could be more consistent oxygenating the wort prior to pitching and I am going to start closed loop transfers after fermentation. I have an altbier carbonating right now that is the second time I brewed it. The first time was a big hit. We will see if this one comes out the same. It should be ready to drink in 4 or days. I can’t wait to try it to see how I did. Thanks for all the help!!

 

[Manfish]

I've been thinking some more about this. The place you start w/ brewing a recipe a second time is to see if it's the same as the first time. Just do it. There are some brewers who will never brew the same recipe twice; I don't see how you can improve as a brewer if every time you change the recipe.

I somewhat agree/disagree with this. I feel that to be a better brewer, you need to be able to nail a recipe and repeat it time after time after time. But with that said, if you are only doing 1-2 recipes and doing the well, you cant grow as a brewer either.

I had never really worried about being able to repeat a beer until what ended up being just before I decided to go ahead and get my licensing and make a go of this thing. At that point I started doing a lot of the same things that were mentioned above, with note taking being my #1. Don't get me wrong. I was doing most of them, but at that point I turned them into habit, not just something "I should be doing". My biggest issue was consistent temps. I took the steps I needed to be able to control temps the entire process and things really changed for me. I can repeat any brew that I do, at any time, over and over now. This is a good thing, especially since we do a house beer for a local taproom and that *must* be consistent. Keg after keg it better taste the same and it does.

I get it when people say they don't worry about being able to repeat a beer, I really do. I used to say that it didn't matter if it was even close, as long as it tasted good, I was good to go. That, most certainly, is not the case now.

 

[mongoose33]

I somewhat agree/disagree with this. I feel that to be a better brewer, you need to be able to nail a recipe and repeat it time after time after time. But with that said, if you are only doing 1-2 recipes and doing the well, you cant grow as a brewer either.

Sure, but I wasn't suggesting people never grow, just that there are those who never brew the same thing twice. My sense is that most of those--I'm allowing for exceptions--are afraid to find out they can't, and the way to avoid that realization is to never try.

I had never really worried about being able to repeat a beer until what ended up being just before I decided to go ahead and get my licensing and make a go of this thing. At that point I started doing the a lot of the same things that were mentioned above, with note taking being my #1. Don't get me wrong. I was doing most of them, but at that point I turned them into habit, not just something "I should be doing". My biggest issue was consistent temps. I took the steps I needed to be able to control temps the entire process and things really changed for me. I can repeat any brew that I do, at any time, over and over now. This is a good thing, especially since we do a house beer for a local taproom and that *must* be consistent. Keg after keg it better taste the same and it does.

I think the only way you can really assess your process is that last part--if you can't make it taste the same, then you have variance in your process, and for me, that's not good. Others may not care. And in fairness, different people may have different goals. I want to brew the best beer possible and I don't see how I can figure that out if I'm not trying to repeat recipes. I don't have to brew them 10 times before determining that--in fact, if I can repeat maybe 3 or 4 recipes, then I'm showing my process is consistent.

This is why I think that's important: before I start changing things, I had better be sure the changes are intentional ones to either the recipe or the process, and not some random difference from batch to batch. If you can't brew consistent batches, there is no way to determine whether a change, good or bad, comes from intentional alteration or some random thing.

I get it when people say they don't worry about being able to repeat a beer, I really do. I used to say that it didn't matter if it was even close, as long as it tasted good, I was good to go. That, most certainly, is not the case now.

I agree, if it tastes good, it's good. But if you can't reproduce it....and frankly I suspect some of that "it's good" stuff may be confirmation bias, not true quality.

But in the end, people have the right to choose their own goals. They don't have to do what I do, nor I do what they do. If they enjoy the process, that's the only thing that really matters.

 

[Manfish]

My sense is that most of those--I'm allowing for exceptions--are afraid to find out they can't, and the way to avoid that realization is to never try.

I can somewhat agree to this. Along the same lines, I have always stated that I see no reason to enter any of my beers into competitions. People have accused me (for lack of a better way to say it) of just knowing my beer was Sh***y and not wanting to prove it. I have always felt that comps are not what I need to be able to validate myself. If people enjoy them, by all means, you go for it and I wish you the best, it's just not my thing.

But if you can't reproduce it....and frankly I suspect some of that "it's good" stuff may be confirmation bias, not true quality.

I believe this to be the truth for a lot of people. Myself, and I could be an anomaly, am very hard on myself and especially my beers. I have always felt that you can't judge your beer based on what your non-paying, 1/2 drunk buddies are saying about it either. That goes for the good and the bad. I take their thoughts with a grain of barley and add it to others comments and see where I am. I have, over the last couple years, been able to 'field test' several of my beers at a couple local bars and get feedback that way. Getting people you don't know to try your stuff and be told the like it (or that they don't, and why), is worth more than any of my direct buddies could tell me, honestly.

I admit, though, I get really nervous every time we release a keg of something for the first time. Friday we delivered, and it was tapped right away, our latest IPA, a 6.3% one with Columbus, Cascade and lots of Citra, called "Too Much Water". I've got some good feedback on it so far.

If they enjoy the process, that's the only thing that really matters.

AMEN to that! As much beer as we are making from my little 2 car garage, it's really ironic that I don't drink more than I do. Truth is, while I do drink more from time to time, I love doing this for the process of it all. I've tried to explain that to others who don't brew and they just don't get it. They see it as a "cheap" way to get drunk, no matter how many times I tell them there is nothing cheap about this! lol

 

[aprichman]

Sure, but I wasn't suggesting people never grow, just that there are those who never brew the same thing twice. My sense is that most of those--I'm allowing for exceptions--are afraid to find out they can't, and the way to avoid that realization is to never try.



I think the only way you can really assess your process is that last part--if you can't make it taste the same, then you have variance in your process, and for me, that's not good. Others may not care. And in fairness, different people may have different goals. I want to brew the best beer possible and I don't see how I can figure that out if I'm not trying to repeat recipes. I don't have to brew them 10 times before determining that--in fact, if I can repeat maybe 3 or 4 recipes, then I'm showing my process is consistent.

This is why I think that's important: before I start changing things, I had better be sure the changes are intentional ones to either the recipe or the process, and not some random difference from batch to batch. If you can't brew consistent batches, there is no way to determine whether a change, good or bad, comes from intentional alteration or some random thing.



I agree, if it tastes good, it's good. But if you can't reproduce it....and frankly I suspect some of that "it's good" stuff may be confirmation bias, not true quality.

But in the end, people have the right to choose their own goals. They don't have to do what I do, nor I do what they do. If they enjoy the process, that's the only thing that really matters.

I disagree, unless you're talking about dialing in a recipe brewing the same beer multiple times doesn't really matter. Your process shouldn't be changing very much regardless of the recipe. Good sanitation practices, pitching the proper amount of healthy yeast, controlling fermentation temperatures, and limiting oxygen exposure after packaging are the cornerstones of brewing good beer consistently.

 

[mongoose33]

I disagree, unless you're talking about dialing in a recipe brewing the same beer multiple times doesn't really matter. Your process shouldn't be changing very much regardless of the recipe. Good sanitation practices, pitching the proper amount of healthy yeast, controlling fermentation temperatures, and limiting oxygen exposure after packaging are the cornerstones of brewing good beer consistently.

Yeah, and how do people learn to dial the process in? By brewing the same recipe and seeing if it turns out the same.

There's really no other way to know.

 

[aprichman]

Yeah, and how do people learn to dial the process in? By brewing the same recipe and seeing if it turns out the same.

There's really no other way to know.

I disagree, your beer can come out consistently with flaws that you may or may not be able to perceive. Making good beer consistently has a lot more to do with making a few basic steps into habit and little to do with "dialing in" your process. If you make consistently good beer regardless of the recipe you are most likely practicing the basic steps of making good beer.

 

[mongoose33]

I disagree, your beer can come out consistently with flaws that you may or may not be able to perceive.

So? Being unable to perceive flaws is not the same thing. Not clear what you're trying to argue here.

Making good beer consistently has a lot more to do with making a few basic steps into habit and little to do with "dialing in" your process.

Sure...and if it was that easy, everyone would be producing great beer by their 3rd batch. I'd also argue it's more than a "few" basic steps. Further, if things like fermentation control, yeast starters, oxygenating wort, mash temp control, pH of mash, getting the oxygen out of post-fermentation packaging, were unimportant, then nobody would be doing them.

It is not just a "few basic steps" that is involved.

If you make consistently good beer regardless of the recipe you are most likely practicing the basic steps of making good beer.

Well....that sounds like it contradicts what you said above. How would you know if you're making consistently good beer if it has "flaws that you may or may not be able to perceive."?????

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[aprichman]

So? Being unable to perceive flaws is not the same thing. Not clear what you're trying to argue here.



Sure...and if it was that easy, everyone would be producing great beer by their 3rd batch. I'd also argue it's more than a "few" basic steps. Further, if things like fermentation control, yeast starters, oxygenating wort, mash temp control, pH of mash, getting the oxygen out of post-fermentation packaging, were unimportant, then nobody would be doing them.

It is not just a "few basic steps" that is involved.



Well....that sounds like it contradicts what you said above. How would you know if you're making consistently good beer if it has "flaws that you may or may not be able to perceive."?????

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Not sure how making the same recipe has anything to do with things like adjusting mash pH or oxygenating wort. Those steps are either part of your brewday or not, brewing the same recipe isn't going to change that. You either have a good process or you don't. You've established a useless metric (repeating recipes) to measure the brewing process.