Going back to extract (for a bit)

Obviously that's a factor too. How many of them do you think tweaked parameters that can't be tweaked in extract brewing, in order to dial in the beers that they entered?

 

Wait, so if a desired flavor profile for a beer is merely a matter of personal preference, then how are we to measure the quality of one beer versus another? It would seem that under your paradigm, no one beer is any better than any other beer, as it's all just a matter of personal taste.

 

But even if that is true, unless you like best the results produced by whatever water profile the company that produces the extract uses in their mashing and lautering, you are not able to make the beer that best suits your individual taste if you use extract versus brewing all-grain. More importantly, you have no way to experiment and compare water profiles for various beers to dial in what you like best in a particular style.

So even under that paradigm, extract brewing prevents you from brewing the "best" beer, even when "best" is defined as simply what you like the most.

 

How else could it be? There may be beers that are more popular than others, and beers that command a higher price in the marketplace, because people share some tastes. So you can certainly make objective judgments about which beer is more popular, or sells better, or whatever. But I would be reluctant to say that those beers are better in some objective way, divorced from individual judgments of personal taste.

Yeah, fair enough, the point is that you can control fewer variables with extract brewing. But that is only relevant if the variables that aren't within your control are far from the optimum. Which they may very well be, for a lot of people and for a lot of styles. But what I think people are pointing out is that extract is actually not so far from the optimum for some styles, and so its disadvantages are exaggerated.

By way of analogy, imagine that you are trying to get to the highest-elevation point in the continental United States. And imagine that you can control either one variable (longitude) or two variables (longitude and latitude). Just controlling longitude, you should be able to get to a reasonably high-elevation point, because all lines of latitude run through the Rockies or other mountain chains. But that brings us to the point: with extract brewing, the variables have already been chosen to be somewhat favorable. It's as though you started with a pretty good line of latitude, running through a particularly tall part of the Rockies. Could you get to an even higher point of elevation if you could control latitude as well? Probably. But for some people, and for some styles, extract brewing can get you damn close to where you want to be.

 

Yeah verily!

Cheers to @minderbender !

 

If by somewhat favorable you mean average/acceptable, rather than optimal, I think that's true enough.

 

Are you saying you need a blind taste test to discover that parameters forced by a non-tweakable extract will usually (i.e. across a wide range of style/preferences) not be ideal? Or are you saying that for any two given beers, you need a blind taste test to say which is better? I agree with the latter.

 

It seems this has degenerated into a philosophical issue. If a given extract is 2 tweaks away from giving you a beer that is virtually an orgasmic experience, while your mashing technique ranges from 4 tweaks off to dead on (the nature of hand-made anything, from beer to wood carving), then is it 'better' to be consistently off by 2, or would you prefer to risk being occasionally off by 4, knowing that you'll nail it every now and then? For styles that are suited to the available extracts, this is the trade-off. And, indeed, it's a trade-off on either side, IMO.

It goes without saying that, as your technique improves, you'll nail it more often.

 

I wouldn't for a minute claim that extract can't make an acceptable beer. Or a very good beer. I have had many at homebrew club meetings and the like that were quite tasty.

 

How about if I define "best possible" as the "best beer the brewer was able to make, given the constraints of time, money, knowledge, and ability to not take the whole thing so seriously"?

I don't want to shock you, but a lot of homebrewers do this just for fun. Some of 'em don't even adjust water chemistry or understand mash pH. Their goal may be to make the "best possible" beer that they can make in 2 hours. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

Coming from someone who always uses at least a little extract due to space and equipment constraints:
If you use just extract you aren't brewing, you are rehydrating.

 

Okay. Good misdirection, but not what we were talking about.

I'm not shocked. And I don't disagree.

 

I don't know, @JackHorzempa seemed to be insinuating with his repeated insistence that Briess' all-grain pils was indistinguishable from their extract pils, that extract can make a beer every bit as good as an all-grain beer. That was one controlled example that proves exactly nothing, and yet was seemingly being presented as conclusive proof that you don't lose anything in the brewing process by choosing to brew with extract instead of all-grain. But perhaps I missed the point that was being made.

I'm sure there are plenty of extract brewers that make better beer than many all-grain brewers. Like anything else, you can make allowances and build recipes through trial-and-error that take into account the particular properties of the extract you are brewing with, and there are plenty of other things in the brewing process that require attentive controls to make good beer. There is obviously a lot more to brewing than whether you choose extract or grains for your base malt. But I think it is important not to minimize the amount of impact things like water chemistry and mash temperature and pH have on the final product, either.

Pointing that out isn't a slap in the face of extract brewers, just an attempt to make sure that people are aware that you are sacrificing a pretty large chunk of control by using extract. I had no idea about any of that when I started brewing.

 

Taken one step further, you're sacrificing a pretty large chunk of control over what's in your glass when filling it with commercial beer instead of brewing with extract. Thus, I would never advise someone to forego brewing just because he's not able or willing to brew all-grain.

 

Your reasoning makes sense.

A few suggestions, if i may, perhaps to possibly shorten your all-grain brew day:
1) test for conversion (not all brewers mash for 60+ mins...some mash for 15!). Anymore, I test at 30 mins and have had full conversion generally between 30 and 45 mins.
2) Batch sparge rather than fly sparge. Batch sparging is much quicker, as channeling and the like are not a concern. The only time-limiting factor here is a stuck sparge. I use a 5 gallon igloo cylindrical cooler with a hot water mesh hose as the filter, and I've been able to run the sparge at 3/4 open without an issue. Draining a full tun takes only about 10-15 mins.
3) Invest in higher test burners?

haha, at any rate, I think you'll be ok whatever you choose!