Homebrewing Myths

 

Do you trust completely the processes you were taught as a new brewer? You probably shouldn't. We all learned certain things that were claimed to be written in stone that later turned out to be completely or largely untrue.

How many of these myths are you still holding on to?

SQUEEZING THE BAG EXTRACTS TANNINS!

The one that I just recently heard that triggered this post is a myth that I thought was dead... finally. But apparently not is that squeezing the grain bag whether just steeping grains or mashing in a bag will extract tannins. This is FALSE. There are factors that contribute to tannin extraction like ph but squeezing the grains is not one of them. 

BIAB LEADS TO LOW MASH EFFICIENCY!

This one is related to the previous myth. I and many others who began using the BIAB method 10 to 15 years ago all experienced mash efficiencies in the low to mid 60% range. Until that is we set aside the "squeezing the bag is bad" myth and started squeezing like mad. Using a fine crush, squeezing the bag and sparging with 1.5 to 2 gallons of hot water can bump that efficiency to 80% or better.

A SECONDARY STEP IS REQUIRED!

Not true. This belief goes back nearly to the beginning of homebrewing. It used to be thought that we needed to get the beer off of the yeast cake as soon as primary fermentation was complete to avoid off flavors and to promote clear beer. This myth was written about widely by authors many of us still revere as the master guru's of homebrewing. The trouble is that those same guru's changed their recommendations but those older books are still around and still tripping up new brewers. With experience and advanced learning we now know that you can leave beer in the primary fermenter far longer than previously thought without any risk of autolysis. Also, your beer will clear just fine without having to go into a secondary vessel. What has been learned also is that the risk of oxidation from moving the beer without extreme care is very real and far more harmful to your beer. 

HOT SIDE AERATION WILL RUIN YOUR BEER!

This one is rather controversial. It has existed since I started brewing 20+ years ago. As a matter of fact it was this very picture posted over 17 years ago on the old Northern Brewer forum where I first heard the term. Being new to all-grain brewing at the time I believed all the comments shouting "Beware Hot Side Aeration!. 

You still see comments like that on homebrew forums and part of the reason for that is that care to avoid hot side aeration is one of those commercial brewing practices that homebrewers believe they need to adopt. The truth is that not every process used at the commercial level applies to the homebrew level. Hot side aeration is one of those those. I would suggest that avoiding introducing oxygen at this stage is easy enough to minimize that you might as well do so but at the same time there is no reason to get worked up about it either.

Help Me Find A Recipe!

If there is one question more common than "Does this look infected?" it would be "Does anyone have a recipe for (fill in the blank)?" 

Fortunately recipes are a dime a dozen online. The trick is finding reliable recipes!

You have no doubt run across a meal recipe on social media and the tagline is usually, "Follow me for more recipe ideas". But when you try to make that dish there is a good chance that it will turn out to be a major disappointment... or it may be very tasty. You just never know. 

And therein lies the problem I have with beer recipes found online. I follow several homebrewing forums and in all of them you will find good folks sharing their recipes. They are probably very good people, very entertaining in their posts and helpful with their replies but I don't know these people or their ability to create a worthwhile recipe. 

Creating a beer recipe requires knowledge of ingredients and how they work (or clash) with each other. If you have a desire to conjure up the next great beer style sure to end up in every brewpub in sight or just want to create something to call your own... a great resource is the book, Mastering Homebrew: The Complete Guide To Brewing by Randy Mosher. While brew guru's like John Palmer approach brewing from a scientific background, Randy is a graphic artist by trade and takes us on more of a right-brain journey. The graphics in his book are attractive and intuitive and help someone like me make sense of the concepts he is teaching.

Books:
There are three conditions that I look for in a beer recipe. A trusted source. Tried and true recipes, not just someone's wishful thinking. And perhaps recipes that have done well in competition. Very often you will find all of these in printed sources. I know, I know, who reads books or magazines anymore. But here are some resources for those who still read physical print media.

Brewing Classic Styles by Jamil Zainasheff and John Palmer should be at the top of your reading list. It offers clear and easy to follow recipes and brewing instructions. These two guys are brew-guru's worthy of the title and have recipe design chops you can trust.

Modern Homebrew Recipes by Gordon Strong is another publication that everyone should read. Strong is a Grand Master Beer Judge and President Emeritus of the BJCP. Yet this book is easy to understand and is full of recipes for all skill levels.

There are many, many homebrewing books by luminaries in the homebrewing world. A few honorable mentions worth looking at are: Clone Brews will give you a leg up when you want to create something close to your favorite beer. The Homebrewers Guide To Vintage Beer by Ron Pattinson is essential for any brewer interested in historic English styles. And Brew Like A Monk by Stan Hieronymus is a must for those who like and want to make Trappist style ales.

Magazines:
Compared to books, your choice of magazines is somewhat more limited. I currently have two delivered; Zymurgy Magazine from the American Homebrewers Association and Brew Your Own (BYO). Each comes in both print and digital form. Both are chock full of recipes which are all archived on there respective websites. I can only recommend one in good faith however. BYO has become the better of the two hands down. Zymurgy in recent years is seemingly less concerned about actual homebrewing information in favor of travel pieces, food fermentation (let's save the pickle recipes for Better Homes & Gardens), non alcoholic beer and some just plain silly shit. There have been some issues that upon flipping through them after they arrived in my mailbox, I simply threw away and never read. My membership is paid up for a few more months but I will not renew. In the meantime I have so many copies of BYO they are sliding off my desk as I type this.

Social Media:
This is my least trusted source but there are a few worthy websites and blogs worth keeping an eye on. First is a personal favorite. I discovered Shut Up About Barclay Perkins over ten years ago. It is written by beer historian Ron Pattinson. Ron is an avid researcher who will spend hours searching through archives of actual brewery logbooks, brewing trade publications, newspaper articles and even the odd courtroom legal transcript. He breaks down and analyzes these brewery logs and scales them down to the 5 gallon homebrew size and publishes two recipes every week. Early on I found his writings appealing and especially like how he uses his research for busting myths. 

My second suggested site is Homebrewtalk.com. Especially the forums titled Homebrew Lager Recipes, Homebrew Ale Recipes, Homebrew Sours and Wilds Recipes, and Specialty, Fruit, Historical, Other Recipes. There are one or two other forum topics concerning beer recipes but those are often populated by folks asking others to review what they are putting together and looking for improvements. The specific forums linked however are part of the their recipe database. Only recipes that have been tried and tested are allowed here.

Beyond those two online sources however I have no others that I can recommend. I am sure there must be others so if you have any suggestions feel free to share them in the comments.

<< Oh, this? Just a pic that one of the brewers at Fullers posted from their brewery logbook.

 

All-Grain Kits...
I Don't Get It

Don't get me wrong. I am not criticizing anyone. But when I began brewing a "kit" was a box that contained liquid malt, hops and a sachet of dry yeast. There was no such thing as an all-grain kit.

When homebrewers at the time moved from extract kits to all-grain brewing they did so by buying their malt from a store that sold homebrew supplies. And there weren't very many dedicated homebrew supply stores. Actually the more I think about it the more I cannot remember ANY such retailers selling nothing but homebrew supplies.

There was a beer, wine and liquor store that had a small but fairly complete selection of base grain, specialty grains, hops and yeast plus some basic equipment. The only other place that stocked a few basics like starter sets and liquid malt was, of all places, a local greenhouse and garden supply center. Online shopping wasn't a thing at that time either. The internet was in its infancy and most discussion of beer and brewing occurred on Usenet newsgroups.

Homebrewers either swapped recipes on these newsgroups or found them in books like Charlie Papazian's "The Complete Joy of Homebrewing". I found this old logbook recently. It is not dated but it has to be one of my earliest recipe logs from the mid to late 1990's. 

I have no idea what the mash schedule may have been. There are no data points like OG/FG, IBU or SRM. Gypsum is noted on one but how much? Not a single tasting note... unless the crossed out recipe means it wasn't any good? Your guess is as good as mine. 

I do remember however that I enjoyed the hell out of making those early beers and I still do.

I read a comment on social media this week that made sense of all-grain kits for me. The author stated that he buys kits of styles he has never made before. This gives him a recipe that he considers trustworthy, tested and reliable. Then, if he likes the result he will start making adjustments on his own to fine tune the recipe to his liking. 

Still however, I would prefer to find a tried and true recipe and then source the ingredients myself. And finding reliable recipes can be a minefield itself. I may just have to write something someday about where to look for trusted recipes that aren't junk. And believe me, the junk is out there.

The bottom line: all-grain kits have their place. They take a lot of steps out of the process of making beer. I happen to like formulating recipes and then fine tuning them. But others prefer the ease of opening the box and having everything you need inside and ready to go. Again, no criticism being hurled at anyone. It just seems foreign to me. Then again, I play my music on vinyl records and like to drive a stick shift so maybe I'm just a boomer. 

That Time When IPA Almost Disappeared

The beer we know as IPA had its beginnings in the late 1700's and had many twists and turns from that point onward into the early 20th century.

Then Prohibition came for a lengthy visit and breweries across America closed. Some were able to pivot and found new ways to keep the lights on. Some like Yuengling turned to dairy products. Others shifted to soft drinks while some, Schiltz, Miller and Pabst, began manufacture of malt extract which they marketed as being for home bread making. Wink, Wink.

By the time Prohibition was lifted in 1933 however only a handful of the nations 1,300 breweries were still around. To add insult to injury for IPA and most other ales, American beer drinkers tastes had shifted to the lighter bodied and refreshing Lager styles brought over by central European immigrants. 

One brewery that bucked the trend was Ballantine Brewery in New York. In addition to a lighter beer they also had one with a specific gravity of 1.070 and and fairly bitter at 60 IBU AND it was dry-hopped. If that doesn't sound like an IPA I don't know what does! 

This IPA was fermented in open wooden vessels for up to a year. Something that may not sound familiar to contemporary beer drinkers but is actually a process familiar to brewers of English IPA's in the 1800's. With the exception that Ballantine's did not use Brettanomyces and the English brewers did.

How many brewers of IPA do you know who would even consider: A) fermentation in wood... B) aged for 12 months... and C) employ a secondary fermentation with Brett??


Ballantine's IPA went through many changes over the years and soon became a mere shadow of its 1930's self. Nevertheless from 1933 to 1979 it was the only example of the style anywhere in America. 

By the time the craft movement dawned however Ballantine was ignored. It was so watered down... and those early craft pioneers were too young to remember its heyday that they turned to other inspiration.

Liberty Ale: Anchor Brewing Co. Created by Fritz Maytag in 1975, Liberty Ale was a relatively strong pale ale which used American hops and was dry-hopped. It was a direct reaction to a research trip that Maytag took to England looking for inspiration for his new brewing product. He was surprised to discover that traditional English brewing practices had been largely abandoned stating: "There was very little hopping going on, and they weren't dry-hopping". Upon his return to San Francisco, Fritz Maytag set about creating two dry-hopped beers... Old Foghorn and Liberty Ale.

Although Liberty Ale had a bold hop profile using American Cascade hops it did not reach the threshold of an IPA and Anchor didn't market it as such. Even though many homebrewers and craft brewers point to it as one of the first of the modern era it actually falls (or fell) somewhere between and IPA and a Pale Ale. Still, it cannot be denied that Liberty Ale established a template for a bitter, hoppy, and flavorful ale that had not been seen in America since the prime of Ballantine IPA.

Grant's IPA: Yakima Brewing Co. This was a new one on me. I had not heard of Grant's until I began my research for this article. No one argues whether or not this one is an IPA or not. Head brewer Burt Grant designed his beer as an IPA from the very beginning in 1981. Like Fritz Maytag, Grant made a pilgrimage to England where he not only observed what they were doing at the time - but did much research into the history of what they once did. The resulting beer he created he considered to be a historical beer... not one shaped by contemporary English IPA or anything made in America. Grant wanted his beer to be an original product based on his UK investigations. 

Grant wasn't satisfied with simply bringing back a classic and nearly lost style. He wanted his IPA to have a distinctly American twist and to do this he chose to use hops grown by the local Yakima Valley hop growers. Grant's IPA touted a bitterness of 60 IBU reminiscent of Ballantine's but with an OG of just 1.048 which some may consider low for and IPA but it slots in quite nicely with many of the historic UK versions.
 
Celebration Ale: Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. Arriving on the scene in 1983 as a seasonal winter beer, Celebration, like Liberty Ale, was not conceived as an IPA. Even today it is not marketed as one. It has however won medals at the Great American Beer Festival in the IPA category.

Like Liberty Ale, there is much discussion amongst brewers as to whether Celebration should be considered an IPA. Some say it has too much caramel character to qualify. Others claim it belongs more to the Extra Special Bitter family. There is no doubt however that Celebration Ale has been the inspiration for other IPA's that came later.

Jim Bush at Victory Brewing Company says that in designing their Hop Devil IPA Celebration was most definitely their inspiration.

In the end: There is no denying that Liberty Ale, Grant's IPA and Celebration Ale are three pioneering IPA's and can be credited as forerunners in the modern revival of IPA as a distinct style. All three have had considerable influence on craft brewers that followed and each deserves its place in that history.

Beer styles are ever evolving and are never static. Beer styles also fade in popularity. Porter once died out but has made a comeback. Mild was once wildly popular and may never see a revival save for a few homebrewers. So too IPA almost slipped away until a few determined brewers rescued it from obscurity and brought it back into the American consciousness. Today, craft brewers have stretched the boundaries of IPA to make it the most popular style of ale on several continents.

 

Making Beer Not Numbers 

When I was new to homebrewing and for many years afterward I was obsessed with hitting all my my numbers. If my mash efficiency was off or if my gravities didn't match the recipe I would go into near panic mode trying to figure out how to fix it.

Reading through beer and brewing forums, Facebook Groups, and other social media platforms it seems that all homebrewers experience that same feeling. However I only see comments from a scant few homebrewers who are not bothered by missing a percentage point or a few 10ths on gravity readings. Those attitudes seem to be held by older brewers... or should I say homebrewers who have been at it for many years if not decades.

Today while going through posts on one of the popular Facebook Groups someone replied to a new brewer who was worried about the state of his beer fermenting in a plastic bucket but was afraid to open the lid for fear of becoming oxidized. The reply stated that the older brewer does not even see his beer once it goes into the fermenter until pouring that first glass from his keezer. Another member questioned that practice saying "how do you monitor your gravity and yeast's progress? Final gravity is important for a number of things, including ABV." 

This lead me to take a look at my own homebrewing practices and it dawned on me that I am in the camp of someone who doesn't concern himself with numbers anymore. Where once I checked gravity readings several times during fermentation I don't bother anymore. Why? What can I do about it and do I really want to go through the bother of following this trick or that hack only to risk altering the character of the resulting beer?

But! But! But! I can hear the retorts now just as that poster on Facebook asked... what about your gravity! What about the ABV! 

Consider this; a recipe you find somewhere, anywhere has a lot of data points published with it. It's a veritable alphabet soup of measurements - OG, FG, ABV, SRM, IBU. But where did those numbers come from? The inconvenient truth is that you don't know.

They could have been generated as estimates by someone's recipe design software. They could have been the recorded results by the brewer who made and published the recipe. In either case it is unlikely that you or I, with our equipment, brewing processes, and ingredients, will match those numbers. And in the end how much difference does it make if those numbers don't match the published recipe? Probably not much if any at all.

I read the Brülosophy blog and watch their YouTube channel fairly regularly and I have watched them experience too many non significant results when comparing such variables to now believe that a small difference in FG or ABV are worth my time and effort to chase down.

Somewhere I read someone... perhaps Denny Conn... saying that he doesn't make numbers. When I started following the Tree House Brewing Co. YouTube channel I was struck by CEO, Nate Lanier's reluctance to talk about styles when he describes his beer. Most people describe Tree House's most famous products as "Hazy IPA's" but he just calls them IPA. These two things combined with my own relaxed brewing style fits perfectly where my head is at this stage of the game. I make beer... not numbers. 

Not that I want you to abandon taking readings or to suggest that I don't take them myself anymore. I do. I just don't obsess over them anymore. Case in point - I made a Vienna Lager recently and the OG, FG and ABV were all off when measured next to the published recipe. The OG was supposed to be 1.041 but mine ended up at 1.035. The FG was published as 1.013 but I ended up with 1.008 which actually put my ABV higher than the 3.7% estimated by the recipe at 4.2%. And nobody who has had this beer notices or cares because it's a damn good beer and they enjoy it thoroughly. And isn't that the point? 

What Should You Brew First? Part II

Recently I wrote a post about the easiest beers that a beginning homebrewer can make. I knew I had a basic Pale Ale recipe in my archives somewhere but couldn't find it. Until today!

To recap the earlier post, an American Pale Ale is a classic American beer. It was the most brewed style by craft brewers and homebrewers alike in the late 1980's to early 1990's when IPA began to creep into the landscape.

This is a simple all-grain recipe that will result in a tasty pale ale that lets the beginner concentrate on the mashing process. Hallertauer hops may not be traditional for ales, but damn is it good!

Ingredients:

• 7-8 pounds, English 2-row malt
• 1/2-1 pound, crystal malt (Simpsons Crystal Dark - 135L)
  
• 3 ounces, Fuggles hops (60 min)
• 3/4 ounce, Hallertauer hops (:30/:15/flame out)
• ale yeast (Wyeast #1056)
  

Procedure:

You'll get good yield and lots of flavor from English malt and a single step infusion mash at 150 degrees. Mash for 60 minutes. Boil for 60 minutes. Add the Fuggle hops at 60 minutes. The finishing hops (Hallertauer) are added in increments of 1/4 ounce at 30 minutes, 1/4 ounce in last 15 minutes, and 1/4 ounce at flame out.

Specifics:

• O.G.: up to 1.050
• F.G.: up to 1.020
• IBU : 50 to 61
• SRM: 8
  

 CASK BEER BREW-HA-HA

There has been quite the dust up over at X (the platform formerly known as Twitter) over the demise or health of cask ale. Here is an overview of the kerfuffle and a brief background of 'what the hell is cask ale?" for those who need to know.

It all began with a recent blog post by American beer aficionado, Jeff Alworth, entitled What If CAMRA Had Valued Quality Over Romance. The meat of Jeff's piece states that cask ale would be in a better market position if only the independent consumer group called CAMRA had based their requirements and definition of what is cask ale on science rather than romantic notions.

First we must step back and explain what both CAMRA and cask ale are. Cask ale is beer that has been naturally carbonated with no outside CO2 pressure required to push the beer for serving. A hand pull is used and the resulting pour is (or can be) a smooth, very enjoyable drink with a thick, creamy head. Nitro served beer was developed primarily to mimic hand pulled, cask ale. The drawback to this system is that as the beer is served something must enter the keg to replace the lost volume and that something is outside air. Homebrewers are automatically thinking to themselves "oxidation!" And they are right. In a busy pub that will go through one of these casks in a single evening there is little to no issue with oxidized beer. However if that cask sits for a day the beer has already gone off.

CAMRA is the Campaign For Real Ale. They are a group of beer lovers who support the serving of cask over kegged beer that is carbonated and served with outside CO2. CAMRA was formed in the at a time in Britain when keg beer was overtaking cask served ale and what is considered by the organization as "real ale" was being pushed out of many pubs. Their initial membership were largely made of writers whose hearts were in the right place who had little to no knowledge of how beer was made and that their position was based more on romantic notions rather than scientific method. As Jeff Alworth points out in his article:

The founders didn’t really understand beer or how it was made, and their initial complaints were poetic rather than practical. They had to be led down to a cellar and shown casks before they even knew what they were defending. In 1972, as the organization was taking shape, they came up with a definition (quoting here from Brew Britannia:

“[Real ales] are living beers, kept in their natural conditions and not pasteurized… They are dispatched and kept in casks and barrels without the addition of extraneous CO2… They are drawn from casks and barrels by methods other than those requiring CO2 pressure… They should taste pleasant and wholesome.”

Theirs was fundamentally a romantic movement, which accounts for this non-technical definition. All the writers involved early on were fantastic for getting the word out. They told a compelling story and captured the hearts of their fellow pub-going Britons, 30,000 of whom joined within a few years. I don’t think anyone doubts that this was hugely important in reviving interest in traditional ales and forestalling the assault of industrial-scale lager. But man, there was a cost. CAMRA was adamant about not allowing CO2 anywhere near cask ale. Even knowing that once a cask it tapped it begins to spoil almost immediately the organization defended the inevitable stale and oxidized pint thus in The Good Beer Guide, 1974: "Every brew has its good days, its bad days and its indifferent days. Learn to accept the off moment and revel in the times when you hit on a really excellent pint.” I find that astounding that a consumer watchdog group would defend undrinkable beer! Jeff's lament is that there is, and has been, a solution available all along called the "Cask Breather". A device that fills the void created by every pull of the hand pump with CO2 from an outside tank. This CO2 is of very low pressure and is not enough to affect the already delicately carbonated beer (i.e. over carbonation). But the powers-that-be at CAMRA refused to allow the practice in pubs that they have endorsed and certified as serving "real ale". For readers old enough you can think of the CAMRA endorsement as being somewhat on par with the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Had CAMRA not been so stubborn in opposing the cask breather there would have been far fewer pubs serving undrinkable beer thus giving cask ale a much better reputation among those average beer drinkers who are not devotee's of the CAMRA doctrine. Ron Pattinson in his blog, Shut Up About Barclay Perkins however points to other factors contributing to the decline of cask ale's popularity: "And all this is ignoring one of the biggest factors in the decline of any style of beer: ageing drinkers. The decline in cask beer is never going to be reversed unless more young people start drinking it. That's the biggest challenge facing cask beer. Not whether or not to use cask breathers."

All valid points but how many times is the average young beer drinker going to return to a pub after having been served an oxidized, undrinkable pint? The answer; None of them! To be fair to CAMRA they have loosened their stance on cask breathers. In 2018 they did not openly endorse the cask breather but they no longer publicly opposed it. Which means 50 years passed by when beer drinkers were practically playing Russian roulette with every pint they ordered. Lastly, there are options for you to experience cask ale with just a little expense and not much effort and that is to put together your own hand pulled cask ale system at home. Cask Hand Pumps, also called a Beer Engine, can be purchased online for under $500.00. eBay buyers will find them for just a couple hundred dollars. Check valves (to prevent beer from pouring out of the faucet when the handle is not pulled) and cask breathers can also be easily found. I decided to build my own hand pump system some time ago after watching this video on YouTube. I'll let you know how it turns out.