Homebrewing myths that need to die

CornyKegs 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
dstranger99 said:
Ok, and this one, what exactly is the verdict? Should I bottle when the FG is reached or let it sit at least one month like I have been doing, what's the best advice ?.........
Click to expand...

It absolutely not required. You can bottle as soon as FG is reached. Most will agree that you should typically wait at least a couple of days post FG to let off flavors clean up.

Many of the more experienced HBT brewers primary for 3-4 weeks, no matter what, as they feel it improves the beer. Support for this seems to be anecdotal. The thinking is that some proces flaws are helped by aging, which seems to occur quicker in bulk as opposed to in bottles.

Others - specifically those that really have their process nailed down - disagree, and feel that letting the beer sit in primary is just wasting time before you can drink the beer.
 
mudarra said:
My submittable.
You can't get good efficiencies doing BIAB.
Click to expand...

It's easy to get good efficiency with BIAB as long as that bag is a paint strainer one. This allows me to stir the mash,break up doughballs,& get the grains evenly wetted. So yeah,I think we busted that one.
I give the beer another 3-7 days to clean up by products of fermentation & settle out clear or slightly misty. These by products are normally produced,but other factors like high temps produce them in greater quantities. I came up with the 3-7 days timeline through observation of several batches & how long it took to clean up/clear.
 
Here's a myth that I was just informed of:


Don't let the mash get over 170 during the mash out or you will extract tannins.

I was informed that if ph is in the right place mashs can go higher without worrying about tannin extraction. I never go higher, ever, but its nice to know that if it happened on accident all is not ruined.
 
it's pretty easy to get mid 70s efficiency with biab
edit - oh, i get it, you were posting a myth 0:/
 
Yeah,it's a lot easier now that I switched from muslin sack to paint strainer bag. I can roll it over the lip of the BK/MT. Makes stirring the mash easy.
 
dstranger99 said:
Ok, and this one, what exactly is the verdict? Should I bottle when the FG is reached or let it sit at least one month like I have been doing, what's the best advice ?.........
Click to expand...

As homebrewdad says above, most opinions, mine included, are just going to be anecdotal fodder. I arrived at my own conclusions by repeatedly brewing beer after beer and seeing what worked for me. I think everyone should be doing the same.

Many brewers, new and old (again, some of my batches here included!) will not have ideal fermentation conditions which can lead the the development of off-flavors. It takes understanding of these flavors, a decent palate, and practice to identify these things. Time may help dissipate some of them. Yes, higher gravity beers will take longer to condition. Conditioning is different than "aging out off-flavors."

However, I believe it's bad, borderline terrible advice, to preach the practice of treatment of off-flavors (extended aging) rather than steps that can be taken to prevent them in the first place. Additionally, by reading about the prevalence of people doing these practices, you are incurring somewhat of a bias. You may start thinking "oh yeah, that really does help!" whether it does or not. Similar to sitting at a judging table and having one judge describe a previously unidentified flavor, and then you've convinced yourself that, yes, you taste that same flavor!

With this in mind, the best advice I believe to prevent "green beer" and "off-flavors" is to pitch large amounts of healthy yeast and control your temperatures accordingly.

Anecdote #1: Brewed a 1.046 APA a while ago (02.17.13). Pitched some old S05 slurry right out of the fridge without counting or doing a starter. Pitched and fermented at 64 degrees. Long lag (3 days), sulfur (weird), and phenolic. Drinkable? Sure. But even after a month in the primary, those characters are still there, unfortunately.

Anecdote #2: Brewed a 1.061 English IPA on 03.16.13. Pitched 350 billion viable cells (hemocytometer count) of Wyeast 1098 into 64 degree wort (a little over 1 million cells/ml wort/degree Plato). Fermentation was complete by 03.19.13 to a FG of 1.011. There was considerable diacetyl. I bumped the temperature to 70 degrees for 2 days and re-tasted 03.21.13. Diacetyl gone (didn't take a week or two or three). Added dry hops the same day. Been dry-hopping now for 6 days and I will keg tonight (it also helps to take some notes on your batches so you can recount them later!) Less than 2 weeks from brew-day. I will also fine with gelatin after 24 hours cold in the kegerator to help precipitate any possible chill haze and remaining yeast. I will hopefully be drinking by Sunday when I have guests over. It's an IPA, so I would like to drink it and enjoy that fresh EKG hop aroma before it begins to fade.

No, not everyone has temperature control (heck, I just use the cold-water/ice jug bath!). No, not everyone can do viability tests and precise counting. No, not everyone even makes yeast starters. But I choose to to squash bad beer in the first place and am happy with my results at the moment without leaving my beer in the fermentor for a month at a time.
 
As to the diacetyl time frame,this is why I've been preaching 3-7 days to clean up & settle out bit. It's the number of days I observed over many batches that's needed to do so. So I agree there. Also remembering that compounds that produce off flavors are naturally produced during fermentation,but in minute quantities. High initial ferment temps,unhealthy yeast pitch,shocked yeast,etc all contribute to producing these chemicals in sufficieant quantities to be tasted as off.
 
thadius856 said:
There are such things as second jobs, side jobs, and piecemeal work...

Cannot agree with this. I'm looking at it from the flipside of the coin.

Watching TV instead of brewing still has the same opportunity cost - you could be making money. Interpreting outside the economic lines, the opportunity cost is enjoying additional time with your family, cooking a finer meal, or getting more exercise.

Just because you accept an opportunity cost does not mean that subsequent decisions can't account for it at a later time. The analogue would be buying a $50 gift card, then walking into the store 6 months later with it and picking out $50 items, then considering them "free". They obviously weren't - you have just already accepted the cost and shifted the cost in time.

In other words, saying "there's zero opportunity cost because I would have watched TV instead," doesn't mean there's zero opportunity cost -- it just shifts it from the decision you would have made to watch TV instead of x, to the decision that you did make to brew instead of watch TV, or brew instead of x.
Click to expand...

Just watch brewtv.
 
I'm sure you don't NEED to leave it for 14 days and could get away with bottling sooner if you wanted, but it doesn't hurt and it fits my schedule so it works for me. I would never suggest it was a hard and fast rule people should follow though.

Brewing's all about experimenting and finding out what works best for you.
 
I leave every beer in my ferm fridge for 30 days and never secondary unless adding fruit or some other late adjunct. Necessary? Certainly not. It works for me though.
 
homebrewdad said:
Seriously?

Give me an experienced brewer using extract. He pitches enough yeast, aerates properly, controls his fermentation temps. He makes great beer.

Give me a rookie brewer doing all grain. He has trouble with the proper mash temperatures. He may not pitch enough yeast. Fermentation gets too warm. He makes decent beer.

It's not hard to end up at either of these spots.

All grain gives you ultimate flexibility that you lack in extract, but all grain itself does not improve beer.
Click to expand...
I always liken extract brewing to making a cake with a duncan hines box deal.
Tell a real baker that cake is "just as good" as his cake. Its just not.
A guy i know made a pretty decent extract blueberry ale i tried over the weekend. I bet it would be better all grain.
Either way its certainly not a "myth"
 
NewJersey said:
I always liken extract brewing to making a cake with a duncan hines box deal.
Tell a real baker that cake is "just as good" as his cake. Its just not.
A guy i know made a pretty decent extract blueberry ale i tried over the weekend. I bet it would be better all grain.
Either way its certainly not a "myth"
Click to expand...

I brew all grain. I can't imagine going back to extract; I enjoy the control over the process. I enjoy the challenge of getting things "just so".

I stand by my position - your statement is hogwash.

Extract DOES limit the beers that you can make, as you do lose a lot of flexibility. This is another reason why I won't go back to extract.

But beer quality comes from the process far more than the recipe. Have ten brewers brew the same recipe, and you'll get ten different beers.

I guarantee that an experienced, skilled brewer can easily brew an extract beer that will be superior to my all grain.
 
homebrewdad said:
Come, now. At least let us know which post/idea you are mocking.
Click to expand...
That would be both a personal attack and not staying on topic. These things are frowned upon at HBT.

My post was merely saying that I feel that Kool-Aid tasting good is a myth.




. . . but if you let it sit for four weeks (unless adding fruit) and never move it into a different pitcher, it's turns out great!
 
AnOldUR said:
That would be both a personal attack and not staying on topic. These things are frowned upon at HBT.

My post was merely saying that I feel that Kool-Aid tasting good is a myth.
Click to expand...

I dunno. Making a Kool-Aid reference is a little offensive, but could also be viewed as "I disagree with your point, as I hld that it is silly". Hard to say, though, since we are 20 pages in... no idea what you disagree with.

I do disagree with your Kool-Aid position. I find that some flavors taste quite good (yay black cherry). I do prefer to somewhat reduce the sugar used to mix it, however.
 
I tend to agree. With all grain you can really dial in flavors that you just can't get with extract. However, you can make good beers with extract as we all know. Can you make complex beers with extract, I don't think so. Without mashing your just not going to be able to get the flavors out of the grain. Even partial-mashing cannot really compare with all grain although it gets closer.
 
Enough all grain vs extract debate. Obviously no one is going to change their mind.
 
1) I would say that another myth is that beer contests and "professional" beer tasters know what they are talking about.

If they don't the same beer palate that you do, their advice is useless. The wine industry suffers from this one a low.

2) Also, a gold winning beer is good

Same as above, however it may have also been the best of the three beers in their category...and they all could have sucked!

3) Opening up a microbrewery is a good way to make $

lol...

4) People who like to drink your home brew are really good friends!

lol...
 
Anyone need a salmon slap?

Lew+Zealand2.jpg
 
tdhickey said:
1) I would say that another myth is that beer contests and "professional" beer tasters know what they are talking about.

If they don't the same beer palate that you do, their advice is useless. The wine industry suffers from this one a low.

2) Also, a gold winning beer is good

Same as above, however it may have also been the best of the three beers in their category...and they all could have sucked!

3) Opening up a microbrewery is a good way to make $

lol...

4) People who like to drink your home brew are really good friends!

lol...
Click to expand...

It's hard to call the judges 'professionals', when usually they are volunteers, contributing to movement they are passionate about.
Around here new microbreweries are popping up consistently, and existing ones are expanding their facilities and making considerable donations to local charities. Seems like a good way to make money to me.
 
tdhickey said:
1) I would say that another myth is that beer contests and "professional" beer tasters know what they are talking about.

If they don't the same beer palate that you do, their advice is useless. The wine industry suffers from this one a low.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to be wasting my time writing ways to improve beers on score sheets. I think I'll just write "Tastes Meh", "Tastes good", "Seriously this is crap - Lolz" going forward.

2) Also, a gold winning beer is good

Same as above, however it may have also been the best of the three beers in their category...and they all could have sucked!
Click to expand...

You're showing your ignorance here. Most competitions will not award a 1st place to ribbon to a beer if it doesn't at least score a 35.
 
tdhickey said:
1) I would say that another myth is that beer contests and "professional" beer tasters know what they are talking about.

If they don't the same beer palate that you do, their advice is useless. The wine industry suffers from this one a low.

2) Also, a gold winning beer is good

Same as above, however it may have also been the best of the three beers in their category...and they all could have sucked!
Click to expand...

I'll edit this one and then agree with it -

First point is too general If you said "Every beer judge is an expert and can pinpoint changes you need to make to improve your beer" I'd agree that's a myth. This is why you enter the same beer in multiple competitions to get differing views. Afterall maybe you got a bad judge at one or two, or they had a cold, or an off day, or... Don't look to one opinion. However if you enter a beer in multiple comps and they all score it low and say "tastes like feet" well, it probably tastes like feet.

I've gotten horrible comments and great comments (concerning the value of their input)

Second point - You will LOVE all gold medal winning beer. That is definately a myth and better reflects your palate comment. Its the same as people whining about how horrible BMC is. Well it is a great example of what it is supposed to be. You just don't happen to like it.

Beer judges - Hope this didn't come off as an insult as well, as that wasn't intended. Beer judges have helped me to improve my beer immensely, and I thank them. Not all are great, but the vast majority are pretty darn good!
 
tdhickey said:
1) I would say that another myth is that beer contests and "professional" beer tasters know what they are talking about.

If they don't the same beer palate that you do, their advice is useless. The wine industry suffers from this one a low.

2) Also, a gold winning beer is good

Same as above, however it may have also been the best of the three beers in their category...and they all could have sucked!

3) Opening up a microbrewery is a good way to make $

lol...

4) People who like to drink your home brew are really good friends!

lol...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'll somewhat agree with 1. Every single person who has entered a contest has had at least one score sheet with something completely stupid written on it. ...and the BJCP guidelines are far from perfect. ie "classic american pilsner" (if you don't have a single commercial example, it is not a real beer style). I guess they work fine for competitions, but so many people try use the guidelines when discussing commercial beers or beer history.

...and 2. I have issues with the way some beers are judged. A 2oz pour is not appropriate for session styles. There are lots of beers I've had that are incredible the first few sips but they fail as session beers because they are so rich you just don't want a second pint. I don't think you can accurately judge a session beer until you've actually sessioned it - drink at least a 20oz pint and then assess how you feel about drinking a second pint. ...and how much more fun would it be to judge if you had to drink 20+ oz of each sample?
 
gbx said:
...and the BJCP guidelines are far from perfect. ie "classic american pilsner" (if you don't have a single commercial example, it is not a real beer style).
Click to expand...
From BJCP guideline for Classic American Pilsner:
History: . . . This style died out after Prohibition but was resurrected as a home-brewed style by advocates of the hobby.
Click to expand...
How do you expect there to be a commercial example of a style that is no longer made commercially? Or is it your opinion that if it's no longer made commercially it's not a real style anymore?
 
The style guidelines are about five years old. Avery makes a CAP that is quite enjoyable, and is easy to find in these parts.
 
jeffjm said:
Avery makes a CAP that is quite enjoyable, and is easy to find in these parts.
Click to expand...
hmmmm . . . never saw that one.

But by their own description, it is a contemporary rendition of a classic style. Not a true Classic American Pilsner. The specs don't fit the guidelines, OG too low and IBU's too high. It could never be used as an example of the style.

That said, sounds like a tasty beer. One I'll be looking for. Thanks for pointing it out.

Joe's Premium American Pilsner
Avery Brewing Co. Boulder, CO

Beer Style: Premium American Pilsner
Hop Variety: Bravo, Hersbrucker
Malt Variety: Two-row barley
OG: 1.041
ABV: 4.7%
IBUs: 50
Color: Light Golden

A contemporary rendition of a classic style, Joe's is hopped with purpose: beautifully bitter and dry with an abundance of floral, Noble German hops.
Click to expand...
 
gbx said:
...and 2. I have issues with the way some beers are judged. A 2oz pour is not appropriate for session styles. There are lots of beers I've had that are incredible the first few sips but they fail as session beers because they are so rich you just don't want a second pint. I don't think you can accurately judge a session beer until you've actually sessioned it - drink at least a 20oz pint and then assess how you feel about drinking a second pint. ...and how much more fun would it be to judge if you had to drink 20+ oz of each sample?
Click to expand...

I must have missed the section on the scoresheet that speaks to how many pints you desire of the given beer.

Ugh, if you think the feedback is poor now, how would you feel if you were the 8th beer to be judged after the judge judge imbibed a fuzz under a standard 12 pack of beer? I rather doubt that the scoring would be particularly useful.

Finally, aren't pints 16 ounces? :drunk:
 
homebrewdad said:
I must have missed the section on the scoresheet that speaks to how many pints you desire of the given beer.

Ugh, if you think the feedback is poor now, how would you feel if you were the 8th beer to be judged after the judge judge imbibed a fuzz under a standard 12 pack of beer? I rather doubt that the scoring would be particularly useful.

Finally, aren't pints 16 ounces? :drunk:
Click to expand...

Pints are 1/8th of a gallon.

In the US, that's 16 fl oz.

In the UK, that's 19.2 fl oz because the UK gallon is 20% larger.
 
Fair enough on the pint size feedback... though my comment to the hammered judge still applies.

Good to hear from ya, Stonehands!
 

Similar threads

M
"For the love of god ... !" - Homebrew platitudes that grind your gears
Replies
30
Views
2K
geezerpk
geezerpk
CallMeKiupid
Kiupid's Mead Guide for Beginners (like me)
Replies
3
Views
1K
Barzahl
B
I
Giving up on my fancy conical...
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
GoodTruble
G
MightyMosin
My yeast notes
Replies
3
Views
2K
MightyMosin
MightyMosin
4_Sons_Brewing
12 Beers of Christmas - 2023 Edition
11 12 13
Replies
512
Views
20K
passedpawn
passedpawn
Brewer's Friend 300

Latest posts

Back
Top