test batches
Will Trice
the talk of religious brewing wars in the Linux thread has inspired me
to put down a few thoughts here to see what y'all think.
I've recently returned to brewing after making a string of crappy
undrinkable crap many years ago. For the first batch I used the
simplest process I know: partial boil, hopped extract beer kit, cool in
ice bath (I guess I could have just dumped it in cold water in the
fermenter), ferment in plastic bucket, no secondary, and bottle (okay, I
succumbed to liquid yeast). Well, surprise of surprises, the batch
turned out great. It didn't even have that characteristic homebrew
taste that I was never really able to get rid of back in the old days.
So now I'm addicted again.
Since it turned out so well with very simple, old, and probably
sub-optimum ingredients, I must conclude that my problem all those years
ago was due to my process (including sanitation procedures). So with
each batch I make now, I'm adding back one more complication to my
process (secondary fermentation, dry hopping, using glass carboys,
whirlpooling to remove trub, use of wort chiller, temperature rest for
specialty grains, kegging, etc.). With each batch I make a different
style so I can tell if something I'm doing is bad, but I can't actually
tell if it is good...
To separate fact from brewing religion, I'm thinking of brewing a series
of test batches. Probably one gallon batches of beer made with
identical ingredients. I'll start with dry malt extract batches so that
I have better control over ingredient measurements. This will work for
those parts of my procedure from the boil onwards. I'm thinking of
using a mild american pale ale for the recipe because I think it will be
delicate tasting enough to show flaws, but robust enough that the beer
will still be drinkable with the flaws. Plus this is a style I like!
I mean really, is a wort chiller good for beer? Is fly sparging better
than batch sparging? Dry hop v. hop back? Is a one-step infusion mash
better than a 31,265 step, computer-controlled, double-decoction,
recirculating pseudo-infusion, partigyle, cool-shipped, glycol-jacketed,
steam-injected, paddle-agitated, sub-micron filtered mash?
I see two problems with this approach. First, the question of whether
any result I get will scale up to full size batches. Second, the
ability to detect flaws that might occur more prevalently in other types
of beer (e.g. lagers).
Comments? Suggestions? Free beer you'd like to send me?
-Will
will dot trice at comcast dot net
Ben Crowell
taster doesn't know which is which, and only test one variable at a
time.
For some of the variables you could test, I suspect there's already
published data from similar experiments. E.g., there's a journal called
Zymurgy.
Some of the stuff you're talking about has good practical reasons behind
it, regardless of taste. Paying for a big brew kettle is a good idea in
the long run, because it will save you money on hops, and it also makes
it easier to avoid boilovers when your back is turned. A wort chiller is
simply much faster and more convenient than an ice bath.
Testing the effect on taste may be hard, because some people may have
more developed palates than others, and some things may be a matter of
style or personal preference. I have some experience with testing
effects on speed of fermentation in meads, which is a variable that's
a lot easier to quantify.
alebrewer
Sounds like a plan, but also a lot of work. If you enjoy drinking
beer more than making small batches, however, I can see such a plan
turning you away from homebrewing.
Do you really want to separate fact from "brewing religion"? If so,
like any good scientist, you need to first read-up on the latest
research. If you want to improve your brewing efforts, however, the
best advice is practice.
You have already picked-up on some of the main points, and probably
haven't realized it. First (and most important), brew what you like
to drink. You could brew the world's best lambic, but if you don't
like the sour taste you might throw it out thinking it was just an
infected batch (and if you don't know what I am hinting at, you need
to read-up on some beer styles and drink as many as you can to help
define what you like).
You also need to keep the process simple. This means different things
to different people. For some, a partial boil extract batch is the
epitome of simple. For others, a PID-controlled RIMS system is
simplicity turned into a piece of art. After 15 years of brewing, I
am still finding ways to keep it simple and still enjoy it.
If 1 gallon batches work for you, go for it. For me, it's too much
work for too little result. Last year, I geared up to making 10
gallon batches and I doubt I'll do many more 5 gallon ones. I get
double the product for the same amount of effort. Well, it's slightly
more effort, but nowhere near twice as much.
Since you already like a mild APA, I'd start there. I'd recommend
liquid extract over dry just because I have found it ferments better
(but that is just my opinion). I'd also recommend using steeped
grains (specifically a light crystal malt, 10L or so) and adding hops
(either whole or pellets) to the boil. I'd also recommend using a
good, clean dry yeast (Safeale US-05, Danstar Nottingham, etc...)
instead of a liquid yeast. Unless you are trying for a style where a
clean-fermenting ale yeast isn't appropriate, I don't see any point in
using a liquid yeast unless having too much money is your problem (I
wish I had all the money I spent on 1056 over the years, I'd buy me a
conical).
Anyway, brew the same recipe a few times so you learn the steps,
understand the hydrometer, and refine your process (and keep good
notes!). You should get the same result after a few times. Then, see
what changing from a 20L crystal to a 40L crystal does. Or, what
changing from Cascade to Mt. Hood for the finishing hops does. Or,
well, you get the idea. You can do the same thing with process changes
instead of ingredient changes, but with both, you need a good idea
what your baseline is so you can spot the improvements.
You should make whatever size batch you are comfortable with; no
matter what size you choose, you will find problems scaling it either
up or down. That's why I say, do what you like and like what you do.
Then, if doesn't matter. To me, spending several hours brewing, and
weeks fermenting, is just too much trouble for 8 pints of beer, but,
again, that's me. Your preferences will be different than mine.
ab
Joel
>A wort chiller is simply much faster and more convenient than an ice bath.
Maybe not quite so simply. Slow chilling allows reformation
of DMS in the wort and doesn't allow for precipitation of cold
break. While the latter is largely cosmetic (chill haze), the
former can easily lead to vegetal and creamed-corn flavor and
aroma in the finished beer-- it's something I encountered in
my early all-grain brewing.
However, I'm not sure either of those are a worry when brewing
from extract.
>Testing the effect on taste may be hard, because some people may have
>more developed palates than others, and some things may be a matter of
>style or personal preference.
That's always a good thing to keep in mind.
--
Joel Plutchak
"New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any
other reason but because they are not already common." - John Locke
Bob F
> I'd also recommend using a
> good, clean dry yeast (Safeale US-05, Danstar Nottingham, etc...)
> instead of a liquid yeast. Unless you are trying for a style where a
> clean-fermenting ale yeast isn't appropriate, I don't see any point in
> using a liquid yeast unless having too much money is your problem (I
> wish I had all the money I spent on 1056 over the years, I'd buy me a
> conical).
Have you tried the Safale US 56 yeast? Is it equivalent to the 1056?
alebrewer
Yes, I've tried it and I can't tell any difference. Well, other than
not having to make a starter, plan my brew day 3 or 4 days in advance,
and having more discretionary income. I can tell a small difference
between it and Nottingham, but I've found I prefer the Nottingham. It
seems to be a bit drier to me. Works well in the low 60's, too.
ab
Joel
>> > good, clean dry yeast (Safeale US-05, Danstar Nottingham, etc...)
>> > instead of a liquid yeast.
>>
>
>Yes, I've tried it and I can't tell any difference. Well, other than
>not having to make a starter, plan my brew day 3 or 4 days in advance,
>and having more discretionary income. I can tell a small difference
>between it and Nottingham, but I've found I prefer the Nottingham. It
>seems to be a bit drier to me. Works well in the low 60's, too.
While I wouldn't use the word identical, I can confirm that the
US-56 (renamed US-05 sometime in 2007) is a nice clean reliable
yeast similar to WY1056. I prefer it to Nottingham (for beer; I
use Nottingham a lot for meads), because of the additional dryness
and touch of acetaldehyde I get from the Nottingham, but that's
definitely a personal preference thing.
Will Trice
> Sounds like a great idea to me. I'd suggest you do taste tests where the
> taster doesn't know which is which, and only test one variable at a
> time.
Yeah, that's my plan - I might even use my black tasting glasses so that
taste opinions can be separated from clarity/color opinions.
> Some of the stuff you're talking about has good practical reasons behind
> it, regardless of taste. Paying for a big brew kettle is a good idea in
> the long run, because it will save you money on hops,
We'll see...
> and it also makes
> it easier to avoid boilovers when your back is turned.
OK, I'll give you this one. I had my first boilover ever a few weeks
ago when I was setting up one batch to chill with my back turned to my
boil on the second batch. Fortunately I brew outside and I caught it
before I lost a significant amount. I did incur some scorching, though.
Grrr.
> A wort chiller is
> simply much faster and more convenient than an ice bath.
Except for the cleaning part... But point well taken.
>
> Testing the effect on taste may be hard, because some people may have
> more developed palates than others, and some things may be a matter of
> style or personal preference.
But I only give a crap about my taste! That's why I homebrew!!
Will Trice
> Sounds like a plan, but also a lot of work. If you enjoy drinking
> beer more than making small batches, however, I can see such a plan
> turning you away from homebrewing.
Well, hopefully it will just turn me away from small batches. But I've
been turned away from homebrewing before and it could happen again...
> Do you really want to separate fact from "brewing religion"? If so,
> like any good scientist, you need to first read-up on the latest
> research. If you want to improve your brewing efforts, however, the
> best advice is practice.
The answer is "yes" and I agree with both of your points. And research
is great and much of it is applicable. But if brewers can take such
heavily opinionated, though usually good-natured (with the exception of
debates over the origins of Linux apparently) opposing positions on
technique, then the research applied to ideal conditions may not apply
to *my* home brewery. Particularly for items where quality improvement
may be so marginal as to be undetectable amidst the "noise" of my other
brewing variables. Crap, that opens up a whole other set of questions
for me...
<simplicity comments noted, appreciated, and whole-heartedly agreed with>
> If 1 gallon batches work for you, go for it. For me, it's too much
> work for too little result.
I understand, I was thinking of starting with a 5 gallon boil and
breaking it down into some number (probably 5) of batches that I treat
differently post boil to start. So at least the work is cut down. But
then I need to find some 1 gallon fermenters... And that doesn't help
me for parts of the process farther upstream.
> I'd recommend
> liquid extract over dry just because I have found it ferments better
> (but that is just my opinion).
I like working with liquid better, but I was thinking of how easy it
would be to consistently measure dry. And I've been getting some weird
gravities from my LHBS liquid extract, though that could just be poor
mixing of the wort after doing a partial boil (but I don't think so).
> I'd also recommend using a
> good, clean dry yeast (Safeale US-05, Danstar Nottingham, etc...)
> instead of a liquid yeast. Unless you are trying for a style where a
> clean-fermenting ale yeast isn't appropriate, I don't see any point in
> using a liquid yeast unless having too much money is your problem (I
> wish I had all the money I spent on 1056 over the years, I'd buy me a
> conical).
Sounds like a good test batch. I've always used liquid except maybe my
first couple of batches, but why?
Thanks for the advice.
Ecnerwal
Will Trice <m...@invalid.com> wrote:
> I see two problems with this approach. First, the question of whether
> any result I get will scale up to full size batches. Second, the
> ability to detect flaws that might occur more prevalently in other types
> of beer (e.g. lagers).
>
> Comments? Suggestions? Free beer you'd like to send me?
Third is variablity of things that are supposedly constant - so in "real
science" you might make 10 of each batch to try and figure out what part
has to do with random factors you thought you were not changing, and
what (if any) has to do with the variable you are changing. This ends up
being a lot of batches. Want to try 10 different things - 100 batches of
beer. But then, you have 100 gallons of beer to drink, so it's not all
bad...
The easiest things to quantify are where you can, for instance, start
with the same batch of wort and try different yeast, or the same yeast
and different temperatures or pitching rates - even then you may have
random variations, but so long as things are well-mixed, you are at
least really starting with the same base material.
In general, this is where one is heading in trying to simply keep good
track of what actually happened (along with what you thought you were
going to do) every time you brew - the "log book." To the extent that
you keep track of things, and come back later and make commentary as you
drink the batch, you may discern patterns if you kept track of things,
whether or not a deliberate experiment was underway.
I am, for instance, suspicious that the Gambrious honey malt I tossed
into a batch last year might have something to do with an odd flavor it
has not yet aged its way past. But I won't know or sure until I
experiment further. First time I've used the stuff - the text
description sounded appealing, but it may be that my impression of the
result is just not ever going to be happy with the stuff. Or it could
have been some other factor entirely.
--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by
Steve Bonine
> Sounds like a good test batch. I've always used liquid [yeast] except maybe my
> first couple of batches, but why?
Because since it costs more, it must be better.
I've pretty much switched to dry, too.