Yeast cleaning up. Is this really a thing?

[Navigator]

Right oh I'm not an AG Guy yet. But I have been doing the can"s and changing what malts, sugars,and amounts I put in, I do do the old soak grain for 24 hours and adding the juices to my brew, I take it that all I'm getting is a hint of flavor, is that right and by doing an AG what would I expect to get, (I am time poor at the moment but one day...lol )

[Norris!]

2 hours ago, Navigator said:

Right oh I'm not an AG Guy yet. But I have been doing the can"s and changing what malts, sugars,and amounts I put in, I do do the old soak grain for 24 hours and adding the juices to my brew, I take it that all I'm getting is a hint of flavor, is that right and by doing an AG what would I expect to get, (I am time poor at the moment but one day...lol )

For me the difference is comparable to making a meal with fresh vegetables and meat that you cut up and season yourself to get the flavours and aromas you are after versus buying a microwavable meal. Yes both should taste at least alright but you have the options to make one dish to your specific flavours and wants instead of compromising due to the packaged ingredients.  Both should be nice but when eaten next to each other the differences should be slight but evident due to the freshness of the ingredients and the little differences in preparation and process.

I like AG because I am making it from scratch and it is slightly cheaper to make the beers but with a fair initial start up costs versus extract. I also like the consistency of the final product. There is little to no concern about storage conditions and age versus extract, but still some obviously. 

I like extract for the time savings and the relative ease of use. I don't have the full options in ingredients but with a little planning you can get just about any thing you need to make a great brew. It comes down to what you want from the hobby. If your main goal is beer with little time investment and or initial cost, then stay extract. If you have time and enjoy the process and don't mind the initial equipment cost then go AG. Like I said, both make good beer.

Cheers

Norris

[BlackSands]

4 hours ago, Navigator said:

... by doing an AG what would I expect to get, (I am time poor at the moment but one day...lol )

You can do AG with minimal upfront cost and it can be done in a shorter time if you use a process like the one I have adopted.   I recently started brewing lower gravity AG beers with around 3.5kg grain for 18- 20 litre batches using a 20 litre pot.  The 12 - 15 litres of fresh wort I produce is concentrated and simply made up to the final 20 litres - essentially diluting it down to the intended OG - pretty much as you do with extract, but with a much less concentrated wort of course! Actually, some fresh wort kits you can buy are just that - a  slightly concentrated wort.  I used to sell 15 litre FWK's that were intended to be brewed as 20 litres.   Also, working with these smaller volumes means easier handling and I can get the wort up to a boil much quicker compared to a full AG process - hence time saved.  I also tend not to do full 60 minute boils but rather 30 - 45 minute boils, so a little more time saved there too.   There are other short cuts you can make in the process too as evidenced by numerous successful "short n shoddy" brews done by the likes of Brulosophy and others -  very short mash times, 15 min boils etc. etc.   Those ultra-shortcut processes can apparently get AG brew times down under 2 hours and still produce a great tasting beer.  Perhaps an option worth considering for the time-poor extract brewer looking to have a go at AG. 

 

[Otto Von Blotto]

You can get away with short mashes but short boils are probably a bit more hit and miss. Part of the reason for longer boils is getting a good hot break separation which doesn't happen as well with short boils.

I have read the experiment of throwing all or most of the hot break into the fermenter and it still producing a good beer, however as I've mentioned in other threads, when I did it inadvertently my experience was the total opposite. Just a cloudy shit tasting beer that was nothing like it should have been. 

 

I also wonder whether some styles aren't as affected by taking shortcuts as others are. For example a big hoppy IPA would probably mask a fair few faults that would be well noticed in a lager. 

In any case, if I'm advising someone new to AG, I'll always advise them to adopt practices that are well evidenced to produce the best outcome, not to take shortcuts just to make the brew day a bit shorter at the risk of an inferior outcome because a few blokes in a garage said it works. It may work, but the risk of it failing is higher. 

[BlackSands]

1 hour ago, Otto Von Blotto said:

You can get away with short mashes but short boils are probably a bit more hit and miss. Part of the reason for longer boils is getting a good hot break separation which doesn't happen as well with short boils.

I have read the experiment of throwing all or most of the hot break into the fermenter and it still producing a good beer, however as I've mentioned in other threads, when I did it inadvertently my experience was the total opposite. Just a cloudy shit tasting beer that was nothing like it should have been. 

 

I also wonder whether some styles aren't as affected by taking shortcuts as others are. For example a big hoppy IPA would probably mask a fair few faults that would be well noticed in a lager. 

In any case, if I'm advising someone new to AG, I'll always advise them to adopt practices that are well evidenced to produce the best outcome, not to take shortcuts just to make the brew day a bit shorter at the risk of an inferior outcome because a few blokes in a garage said it works. It may work, but the risk of it failing is higher. 

They do at least follow a scientific process and their product is then evaluated under blind A/B scrutiny by a statistically valid number of participants and subject to the rigors of statistical analysis.  As opposed to the more usual random anecdotal observations provided by individuals faffing about in their garages.    29/29 successful "short n shoddy's" (an that's just Brulosophy) with zero failures STRONGLY suggests your assertion "risk of it failing is higher" to be highly questionable.

"Best practices" as you've often referred to in the past is a somewhat antiquated 20th century philosophy largely used as an excuse not to 'reinvent the wheel'.  And let's face it, if no one reinvented the wheel they would still be made of stone!  It's certainly a place to start but forward thinking companies these days tend to quickly adopt "next practices".   A philosophy of constant and never ending improvement.  "Kaizen" as the Japanese call it. That's also the scientific spirit.  Exploring the boundaries and always questioning and looking for new and creative ways to improve processes, cut costs and maximise efficiency.  Commercially that kind of inquisitive, innovative thinking and associated R&D can also ultimately lead to a significant competitive edge.   

No idea why you got "cloudy, shit tasting" beer from trub into the FV.   I certainly don't.  And there's certainly many examples, as mentioned of "short n shoddy" practices producing great tasting and great looking beer.  The key point is, it's a viable and repeatedly proven alternative for the time-poor.  No one is suggesting you personally have to abandon your 'best practices' -  I get how important they are to you, but there's still overwhelming evidence that these short-cuts provide a reasonable option for those that can't afford to set aside an entire day for brewing.  The notion that if you can't follow AG brewing "best practice" than don't even bother attempting AG, is absolute nonsense.   

Best practice is past practice and I admire anyone who is willing to continue re-inventing the wheel!  Ultimately we all benefit... except perhaps for the stubborn few.   

 

[Otto Von Blotto]

Name one commercial brewery that does 15 minute mashes and boils. None of them do. There are recipes for mild ales that do 30 minute mashes at around 70 degrees with grain bills that would ordinarily result in full strength beers, but otherwise the only people who are doing it regularly are brulosophy. 

I'm not adverse to change, or changing my views on account of new evidence on any subject, but in terms of brewing science overall, those guys aren't even a drop in the ocean. 

From what I've read on hot break and its effect on beer, the only conclusion I can come to as to why that batch was rubbish is because the hot break wasn't separated well. Every other batch of that recipe, of which there are numerous, has been exactly as expected when using kettle finings and removing the hot break from the wort. That was the sole difference, nothing else about the ingredients or process was different to any of the other batches. The actual science on it backs this up, I don't know why their beers are ok, maybe they just got lucky. 

[Malter White]

On 11/28/2019 at 11:02 PM, MitchBastard said:

Be good if the yeast would clean up the entire FV while it’s at it. 

Coopers wouldn't allow that. It would end the sale of krausen collars.

[Marty_G]

14 hours ago, BlackSands said:

"Best practices" as you've often referred to in the past is a somewhat antiquated 20th century philosophy largely used as an excuse not to 'reinvent the wheel'.  And let's face it, if no one reinvented the wheel they would still be made of stone!  It's certainly a place to start but forward thinking companies these days tend to quickly adopt "next practices".   A philosophy of constant and never ending improvement.  "Kaizen" as the Japanese call it. That's also the scientific spirit.  Exploring the boundaries and always questioning and looking for new and creative ways to improve processes, cut costs and maximise efficiency.  Commercially that kind of inquisitive, innovative thinking and associated R&D can also ultimately lead to a significant competitive edge.   

Gee you sure do come up with some interesting stuff.   Love this!  I suppose that many of us brewers do this without realising. We start as a novice then hone our skills and process to get repeatable quality and flavours. Then Look for ways to further improve our brewing practices but knowing what the fall back is to get repeatable results, our benchmark.  If those new practices improve or at the very least maintain the quality for some sort of offset we adopt those practices as the new benchmark. Philosophically I am with you and totally get the concept. 

Edited November 30, 2019 by MartyG1525230263

[Otto Von Blotto]

I can't help but wonder if brulosophy would get different results if they actually aged the beers they test longer than a week. Some problems don't show up that quickly. 

If you believe their results you can do anything with the brewing process and the outcome won't change, which is utter bollocks. There's tens of thousands of forum posts all over the web from people who have had issues due to poor process, whether deliberate or not. 

[BlackSands]

One thing I notice @Otto Von Blotto is your tendency to avoid the main issue of discussions - to sidestep, throw in stawman arguments and redirect focus onto a secondary or even tertiary issue.

The main issue under discussion I believe is:  for the time-poor is it feasible to brew AG using short cut methods and still achieve consistently good results?

And, the correct answer to this question is:  "yes". 

That's all. 

Edited December 2, 2019 by BlackSands

[Otto Von Blotto]

The only thing I'm disagreeing with is the assertion of getting consistently good results from cutting corners based on a microscopic sample size compared to the wider brewing community, and questioning the validity of those results based on their methods of testing them, along with my own and plenty of others differing experiences of process faults causing problems in the beer. 

That's why I don't recommend brulosophy as any kind of guide as to good brewing practice. Their results are very heavily skewed towards nothing making any difference to the outcome for some reason, when plenty of others have had different outcomes. 

A process change in isolation probably won't make much difference, but when you start cutting corners through the entire thing, the risk of failure is higher. That's not to say it will always fail, but it's foolish to say it will always succeed as well.

 

 

[PaddyBrew2]

The only true hypothesis one can take from this debate , notwithstanding the validity of both sides of the arguments , is that said Brulosopher or someone therein attached to the website, by proxy or otherwise , did indeed take a massive shite on one of kelseys buses which therefore makes all future experiments by Aforementioned defecator null and void in the eyes of the protagonist 

[Otto Von Blotto]

luckily I've yet to have someone do that. 

If these shortcuts didn't affect the outcome then every commercial brewery on the planet would be all over it. The fact that they aren't suggests that their own R&D aren't satisfied that they would produce as consistent results as their current, and well proven processes do. Some things just take time to occur and that can't be changed. 

[Hairy]

10 hours ago, Otto Von Blotto said:

luckily I've yet to have someone do that. 

Challenge accepted!

[Greenyinthewestofsydney]

11 hours ago, Otto Von Blotto said:

luckily I've yet to have someone do that. 

If these shortcuts didn't affect the outcome then every commercial brewery on the planet would be all over it. The fact that they aren't suggests that their own R&D aren't satisfied that they would produce as consistent results as their current, and well proven processes do. Some things just take time to occur and that can't be changed. 

You would be surprised with big business. Often there are quite easy savings to be had by changing process but they get tied up in red tape till they give up so everything stays the same. 

Unlike big business I try a lot of the things I read and make up my own mind on it.

With brulosophy. Most things come up statistically insignificant and who knows how many the testers have under there belt before they start testing samples. It gives me ideas to try but I almost don’t care about what the results come out. If I think it might have merit I will give it a go myself and decide. 

[Otto Von Blotto]

It's interesting to read but I don't really take much notice of the results. The two things I've tried and stayed with from that site are the lager fermentation schedule (although I still lager them for a reasonable time when I can rather than drinking them after a week or two) and the yeast starter harvesting. 

Other things I stick with because they work every time and I don't see any real advantage to changing them.