Mashing Out

I forget whether or not all the raw observations are included in the presentation, but if they are, can you compute error and confidence levels for us?

That aside, Doss found a correlation between attenuability and mash time. Troester found a similar correlation. Taken together, and having used the results in an attenuation model, I tend to believe that what they found is pretty close to the truth. Is a 3.25% attenuability difference between 60 and 75 minutes the exact average you'd get with a higher number of trials? I don't know, but the model seems to work pretty well.

If you or anyone has better data, I'd very much like to see it!

 

One thing to remember is that his work and Kai's were done with Pils malt. I have wondered if there would be different results for NA malt or a British malt.

It also needs to be pointed out that Beta Amalase will denature rapidly at 158F, but Alpha denatures at 176F, so not all is done away with in a mash out.
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=The_Theory_of_Mashing

 

I'll take a look and see, but yes I can if data is there.

The trends are definitely there, and are likely true. The pessimist (and scientist) in me, wants to be able to see the error so I can at least feel more comfortable altering points of my own brewing procedure to recapitulate what they see or predict.

 

Alpha actually begins to denature before 176F, but I assume there's some kind of rapid acceleration at/above 176F, because I have read that Alpha denatures "rapidly" above 176F too. I've also read that alpha denatures in about 2 hours at 153F. So I think of the mash as a race between amylase enzymes working within (or outside of) their optimal ranges and the wort temperatures denaturing them at various rates. But it's an excellent point... sometimes we think of a mashout as a brick wall, but it's not really.

 

AHA! A breath of fresh air. Thank you.

 

Taking the day off today and looked at the talk... no raw data included or any indication of attenuation variability in talk. Emailed Wyeast to see if I can get the raw numbers.

 

This is a pretty darn unfair and inaccurate binary scenario you've set up here, sir.

 

True, there's a lot of in between. My point was some brewers strive to make the best beer by wanting to know every detail of every step in the process while others are ok with keeping it simple. I don't think it's an unfair statement to say: the probability of making exceptional beers is higher for those brewers that dive into the details of brewing theory.

 

I would have said it that way. I have made some exceptional beers, and have had some as well from others, but have never delved as far into it all of the stuff that this thread has moved into. Now, I am not sure that I could take the same exact recipe I brewed to make said beer and reproduce the exact same beer again, let alone, again, and again, and again, and again, you get the point.

 

I get where you are going, but I don't think it's accurate to say that a brewer needs the knowledge of a chemist in order to be able to make really good beer. Obviously, what good beer you can make without that knowledge may depend a bit on your local water profile, what kinds of recipes you want to make, etc. But I think it's important to remember that many places in the world have produced good beer for a long, long time - well before people had control over pH, mineral content, etc. And these local characteristics in terms of water, ingredients, and the like are why great pilsners have been brewed in the Czech Republic and a bitter or a porter might come out of the UK.

I mean geez. Go take a walk through the Cantillon brewery sometime. The finest beer I have ever sampled comes out of a brewery using processes that are more than 100 years old. I don't know whether they are big into lab/chemistry issues these days, but they certainly wouldn't have been traditionally, I would think.

So, while I agree that understanding brew chemistry may certainly be useful (particularly if one wants to brew a whole bunch of different styles), I don't think it's remotely fair to suggest that those who don't approach the brewing process with the utmost scientific approach are simply lazy people satisfied with making mediocre beer, which seemed to be your suggestion.

 

Those breweries had centuries of experimentation/experience to draw upon. I'm guessing the beers they brew today were not a product of the first several years of attempts. I don't think you can really make a comparison between centuries old brewing, and homebrewing.

 

This doesn't really do anything to refute my point. First, I don't think it is accurate to suggest it took traditional brewers "centuries" to make good beer. Did beers change over the years? I'm sure. But it's not like palatable beer is a new invention. Far from it.

Second, homebrewing doesn't exist in a vacuum. The experiences of those who came before and have written about brewing inure to the benefit of the brewer. A brewer can make an excellent beer by rigorously following directions, just as a cook can make an excellent meal by following a good recipe. A brewer doesn't need to know the chemistry behind mashing at a lower temperature, for instance, to create a drier beer by having a more fermentable wort. The brewer just needs to obey the instruction to hit the appropriate mash temperature.

By no means am I suggesting that understanding the chemistry of brewing is a bad thing. It's great! But it is both historically inaccurate and needlessly discouraging to people who want to get into the hobby to make the false contention that advanced chemical knowledge is required to make good beer.

The original post I was responding to said this:

That's why I originally stated, it depends on what your goal is. Some home brewers have aspirations of turning their hobby into a lifelong career, while others just want to make mediocre beer to drink at home.

This sort of thinking is what I'd like to see avoided. I don't think it's fair to say that those who don't have the expertise of someone who would make brewing a "lifelong career" are somehow relegated to making "mediocre beer to drink at home," nor do I think it's fair to judge those who lack the scientific knowledge as somehow being unmotivated dolts with unsophisticated palates that are perfectly satisfied by sub-par beer. I am sure there are plenty of homebrewers out there who have dialed in great processes and make great beer, even if they don't understand each chemical element of the process. Suggesting that people who don't fit into an exact scientifically expert mold of brewer shouldn't even bother with the hobby because they can't make good beer is not the sort of inclusive attitude that I think is one of the traditionally great things about homebrewing and homebrewers.

RDWHAHB!

 

They making inferior beer in Pilzn, then they built a new brewery, brought in a German brewer and brewed the first Pilsner. That was not centuries for that case.

 

My point was that brewing without an understanding of the scientific principles behind it, is essentially brewing blindly. You can eventually make a decent beer brewing blindly, but you will need to modify the same recipe many times before coming up with something good/great.

In other words, brewing blindly in an attempt to make better beer is not the best method...and dependent on how long you stick with the hobby, probably futile.

It should be noted that I'm talking about your comparison to historically produced beer.

As to your other comments, painting by numbers or tracing can produce an appreciable work of art...but that's not what most people would consider art. That isn't meant as a snide remark, just trying to point out that brewing while following instruction of others isn't what most people seem to get into homebrewing to do, and it would be difficult to take the next step when you have no functional knowledge or understanding of the processes at work.

 

Caveman homebrewer no make good beer!

 

Again, though, this is an unfair characterization. You have set up a strawman by saying "no functional knowledge or understanding of the processes at work." Again, this is an inaccurate binary scenario that is not particularly germane. Nobody is arguing a homebrewer should have no functional knowledge. I'm just bristling at the folks who seem to contend that beer chemistry must be mastered at a minute level in order to brew good beer. It needn't be. Those that are interested in doing so - that's great. But for those that are intimidated by that prospect, they shouldn't have to come onto boards like this to learn about brewing and leave feeling like the hobby is totally inaccessible. There's no reason for it.

So, the question is not whether a brewer can have "no functional knowledge," but rather how much is needed. My suggestion is someone who learns a lot of the basics - mash temperatures, fermentation temperatures, good sanitation, avoiding getting O2 in the beer, alpha acids, and what different hops smell/taste like - can make some pretty great beer. The brewer doesn't need to know why a higher mash temperature leaves more unfermentable sugars - only that it does. The brewer doesn't need to know why higher alpha acid hops will provide more bitterness when added earlier in the boil - only that it does. Understanding the chemistry of these things is great, absolutely, but it is simply not accurate or honest to state that it is a prerequisite to making good beer, and history absolutely belies that contention. Moreover, there are plenty of brewing software options out there that will help point brewers in the right direction in terms of hitting their desired beer. I don't think it's fair to say that someone who grasps the basics and has some decent software around is flying "blindly."

 

I wish there was a way for me to do a multiple like of @jnrjr79 's post.

Cheers to jnrjr79!!!!!!!!!

 

Aww, geez, thanks!

 

I suppose the disconnect here is that I'm not saying you need a degree in chemistry to brew good beer. What I'm saying is that more knowledge is better, and I don't think I'll ever agree that a certain amount is "good enough." You should always be trying to learn more, and I think this is a universal truth, not one solely related to brewing.

My main argument was simply that you can't compare centuries old breweries and their methodologies to someone starting out in homebrewing...the methods employed 400 years ago aren't translatable. That is, knowing that your water works within a certain style because you've brewed the same beer 100's of times, is not something you'd be able to do on the homebrew level. It would be much easier to get a water report, and learn the basics of brewing water chemistry.

The "flying blindly" comment wasn't aimed at a specific level of understanding, but assumed a degree of ignorance. No measure of knowledge had been arrived at in that respect.

Lastly, you're assuming people are being put off by these comments. Personally, I would go seek out information, instead of deciding it was too much for me. There are innumerable resources out there that explain/introduce the more advanced aspects of the brewing process in a way that is easy to understand.

 

This is a philosophical point beyond where I'm trying to go. Knowledge is great. I'm not trying to be anti-epistemological here.

I think there's a reason that any introduction to brewing class you'd take at your LHBS doesn't start with the water report. Water chemistry is great. I will modify my water when appropriate. But most folks can do pretty well with their local water supply and/or some use of distilled water. If and when people want to move up to adjusting those things, great. But most will be able to make really good beer without it, though I would acknowledge some styles may work better for others. It certainly wouldn't take "100's" of times to figure out whether your IPAs, pilsners, or porters are working better, though.

You said "no functional knowledge." That's not a "degree of ignorance." That is essentially total ignorance.

Not everyone is like you. People have jobs, families, and other major drains on their time that may make them unable to consult the "innumerable resources" available. I think it would be a shame for someone interested in homebrewing to do a little research on the internet, click over to a homebrewing forum such as this, and conclude that in order to make beer that isn't shitty, they must spend thousands of dollars on equipment and invest hundreds of hours of time studying chemistry. The truth is that while you can certainly invest that amount of money and that amount of time, and while in a perfect world everyone would be able to do that, I know many, many homebrewers that crank out really fantastic beer without it.

There is a reason "Relax, don't worry, have a homebrew" is the traditional mantra and not "Spend a couple of mortgage payments on equipment, sit down with your textbooks, and don't consider producing good beer until after many months of study." I would argue that a brewer who has a few batches under his or her belt, a few hundred bucks in equipment, and has read The Complete Joy of Homebrewing probably already has the tools necessary to produce a product that exceeds some of the craft offerings crowding the shelves in liquor stores these days. Heck, some styles of beers are quite easy to make. I love to make English milds because it's hard to find any fresh here, and with the low ABV, getting a healthy fermentation is typically a piece of cake. That's certainly a beer that would not require professional level scientific knowledge to produce.

None of this is to say that spending a great deal of time learning about brewing won't improve your beer. Of course it will! And that's great. Lord knows in the years I have been brewing, I have spent a lot of time reading about the process, upgrading equipment, and the like. But while these tools definitely improve your abilities and consistency, a lot of it is not a true prerequisite to making good beer. The initial contention I was trying to address was that there are only two possibilities: Siebel-trained "pro"-style brewers and their equivalent on the one hand, and a bunch of unsophisticated dolts interested only in mediocre beer on the other. That dichotomy is not accurate. And I would hate to deprive someone the awesome feeling of really nailing a batch of beer for the first time because they incorrectly believed that the amount of time and money necessary to begin making good beer was prohibitive.

Anyway, I'm droning on way too much at this point, so I think I'll stop. Obviously we all love to brew around here and we don't need to have the same point of view on every brewing topic. Thanks for the discussion.