Well, I recently plugged a Barley Wine into beersmith using a recipe from 1840. The grain bill and the hops are all still available, the only difference was mash temperature. Interestingly, putting it into beersmith I noticed it fit the profile of American barleywine more than English barley wine. Considering it's an old English recipe it made me chuckle. I guess prefixing with the word American onto English, Belgian and German beer styles will continue.
How do you think homebrewing conventional wisdom will change in the future?
- Thread starter Bosh
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
That is wild how an English bw was closer stylistically to an American one. I want to do a Burton barleywine after the mumme'. I basically think differences will come from improved yeasts, hops & grains. More extracts will likely result from these improvements in malts & processes. Possibly even water additives that'll mimic certain water profiles beyond Burton-Upon-Trent, or Sheffield. 
That is wild how an English bw was closer stylistically to an American one. I want to do a Burton barleywine after the mumme'. I basically think differences will come from improved yeasts, hops & grains. More extracts will likely result from these improvements in malts & processes. Possibly even water additives that'll mimic certain water profiles beyond Burton-Upon-Trent, or Sheffield.
I must have about 40 traditional British recipes with 100+ IBU and a few dozen with an OG over 1.100 so that doesn't surprise me much
To be fair, what I find is that Americans tend to brew both more hoppy AND more malty. I find Sierra Nevada over the top malty (even their hoppy beers) while British beers tend to be less malty and more balanced. Some American reds I just can't drink. Or white stouts; hate those based on trying two.
This. I would wager that these will make up a large percentage/majority of homebrewers by 2024.
There will always be an ever-dwindling minority devoted to keeping it "old-school", of course, like every other tech-invaded hobby.
Fashions and tastes change, but technology isn't going anywhere, especially when it can be used to make the same product and shortcut the mundane steps/mitigate the risks.
I look forward to how the hobby will expand and become more creative when it's so easy to produce a consistent, good product. The tech is only going to get cheaper....
PlexVector
Mellow Goose Brewing
Actually; Homebrewing will be a thing of the past. Automated systems and tax laws will allow anyone to start a brewery of any size, anywhere, and sell to the public with no previous experience required.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,841
- Reaction score
- 857
Homebrewing use to be more than the words face value. It wasn't just brewing at home. It was brewing with stuff you could mostly find around a home. If you wanted to expand on it you'd hit a surplus store or Home Depot. The automated systems have changed that. Buying and brewing from your home with a scaled down professional system takes the hobby out of the hobby. Hipsters with money will be running the show until they get bored.
edit to say:
. . . but think of all the cool stuff they'll leave behind.
edit to say:
. . . but think of all the cool stuff they'll leave behind.
To a certain extent I agree. We have watched it happen to Hot Rods, Ham Radio, even woodworking to a lesser extent. If you focus on that last one, the future looks less "grim" for those that do not want full automation.
Hobby woodworking made HUGE leaps and bounds in technology from the 1950's to about the early 1990's. It did not stall at that point but the focus moved to just making the same equipment cheaper (planers, jointers, quality hybrid or small cabinet saws).
Innovation in automation has not really made any strides...part of it might be the footprint required but I think it has more to do with hitting a wall. At some point it became clear if we go any further, the hobby will not support it because the "hobby" goes away.
Home brewing will likely reach a crossroads where one camp focuses solely on recipe creation and inputs that into the Beermatic 2024 while the other camp focuses on having MORE involvement in every step of the process. Just look at how many folks bought and use the Pico/Grainfather/Braumeister/etc...then look at how much growing your own hops has increased in popularity.
brewshki
Well-Known Member
I really like your last point about the two groups. I'm a new all grain Brewer and I absolutely love the work and steps I have to put into the process. I respect those who use systems like the pico brew but I do not want to own one. For me, the process is the best part. I haven't gotten to recipe formulation much yet because I want to make good beer before I design it, but I don't think I will ever go the fully automated route. However, I think that those are great options for people and only help to expand the hobby and what is available for everyone. I don't see and issue with the two groups existing.
I don't think it's that easy to reproduce historical beer. To go down the line:
-Back in the 1840's there'd probably be brett in the beer, which most people don't use these days. The sacc yeast is easier to reproduce but I don't think any strain of yeast is going to be 100% the same after most of two centuries.
-The grain bill isn't going to be the same. The strain of barley you're using is certainly different than what was used back then and malting techniques are different as well.
-The hops are going to be the closest but hops are processed and stored differently these days so using the same recipe you're going to get more IBUs than they had back then.
That doesn't even get into differences in mashing, fermenting and aging.
Dialing in on historical recipes is really really hard.
My next brew is going to be inspired by an old Lovibond porter that was made with only amber and black malt. Hard to hit that recipe exactly these days since we don't really have a real "amber" base malt at all these days. I'm going to try to get in the ball park with some munich and aromatic but ballpark is as close as I'm going to get. Should be a tasty malty porter nonetheless.
Some of that newness wears off after a while and certain steps do become a bit tedious. In my case, moving to all manual eBiaB allowed me to focus on things important to me and still spend less time actively brewing.
nevermind
I also brewed a bit about 6 years ago, left it and then came back heavy in the past 2 years. (seems like a lot of us are in the same boat)
I totally agree with your observations and I could not be happier with the developments! When i brewed a while ago I thought i would never go all grain due to the perceived complexity, extra cleaning, storage, etc. Now I BIAB and couldn't be happier.
As many have said, i definitely pay attention to the Brulosophy results. I just want to point out that its worth noting that most of his experiments are piggybacking on experiences, thoughts, musings, and revelations by LOTS of other people in the brewing community. I don't mean to take anything away from the whole gang at Bru...I am just trying to point out that those who you may perceive as following them down the short mash/full trub/short boil/gelatin wormhole aren't really just following one guy's crazy exploits but the combined knowledge of all of HBT and beyond concisely compiled and tested in one place. Cheers to the Bru crew.
As for where things are going.....wider and more varied use of water additions to achieve dramatically different results with the same grain/hop bills. Conventional wisdom....gypsum for IPA for pronounced hop aroma. New wisdom....get a whole new brand of hop aroma and mouthfeel by inverting chloride/sulfate ratio. What can seemingly wild variation in water profile do for traditional styles?
I totally agree with your observations and I could not be happier with the developments! When i brewed a while ago I thought i would never go all grain due to the perceived complexity, extra cleaning, storage, etc. Now I BIAB and couldn't be happier.
As many have said, i definitely pay attention to the Brulosophy results. I just want to point out that its worth noting that most of his experiments are piggybacking on experiences, thoughts, musings, and revelations by LOTS of other people in the brewing community. I don't mean to take anything away from the whole gang at Bru...I am just trying to point out that those who you may perceive as following them down the short mash/full trub/short boil/gelatin wormhole aren't really just following one guy's crazy exploits but the combined knowledge of all of HBT and beyond concisely compiled and tested in one place. Cheers to the Bru crew.
As for where things are going.....wider and more varied use of water additions to achieve dramatically different results with the same grain/hop bills. Conventional wisdom....gypsum for IPA for pronounced hop aroma. New wisdom....get a whole new brand of hop aroma and mouthfeel by inverting chloride/sulfate ratio. What can seemingly wild variation in water profile do for traditional styles?
There's a diastatic aromatic malt from Belgium that is meant to be close to old Amber. They had cold storage back then to keep the hops fresh but old hops were also used on purpose. Things get modern around 1880 when malts are more like modern ones and single infusion mashing has taken over. Brett C was isolated shortly after.
This thread is a great read - lots of good historical stuff as well as information on today's brewing.
My take on the question posed in the title:
People are going to shorten the hands-on or overall time of brewing. Half-hour-or-less BIAB mashes will become common practice; shorter boils will become normal, including an hour or less for pilsner malt; no chill and whirlpool-only hopping will continue to pick up steam and be considered totally mainstream. Quick grain-to-glass beers will also be more common.
And like others have suggested, raw ale is a good bet for the up-and-coming style for homebrewers. It might have a more limited commercial appeal and it won't reach the popularity of IPAs or saisons, but as more homebrewers discover they can make a pretty good beer without a boil, you'll see more homebrewers doing just that, creating new substyles and finding ways to approximate existing styles without boiling.
My take on the question posed in the title:
People are going to shorten the hands-on or overall time of brewing. Half-hour-or-less BIAB mashes will become common practice; shorter boils will become normal, including an hour or less for pilsner malt; no chill and whirlpool-only hopping will continue to pick up steam and be considered totally mainstream. Quick grain-to-glass beers will also be more common.
And like others have suggested, raw ale is a good bet for the up-and-coming style for homebrewers. It might have a more limited commercial appeal and it won't reach the popularity of IPAs or saisons, but as more homebrewers discover they can make a pretty good beer without a boil, you'll see more homebrewers doing just that, creating new substyles and finding ways to approximate existing styles without boiling.
Similar threads
