[quote=“chinaski”]Ken- you correctly interpret what I said to apply to forum postings in general, not necessarily this particular thread. I’m also willing to bet that most of us don’t take anything we read here as absolute gospel, even from the most trusted & respected folks. In the end, we are all using our guts to make our brewing decisions and forming our own best practices on the available info- good, bad, or none of the above.
Good discussion- I raise my homegrown hopped house IPA in our honor![/quote]
Cheers!
Gee…if only there was a book that encouraged people to experiment with homebrewing and objectively analyze the results…
Obviously, I agree with you, Ken. If you’re getting good results, then you’re doing it right no matter what others say. Of course, you can look at good results a couple ways…first, do you enjoy your own beer? Second, what does an objective blind evaluation tell you? I think you’ve covered both of those bases and know that you’re making good beer on both levels. The way I advanced my brewing was to read a lot online, learn who had a clue and who was just regurgitating, and experiment with everything that made sense. I decided for myself. I came up with a lot of things that flew in the face of homebrewing tradition, but I made great beer. I think that’s the direction you’re heading.
Gee…if only there was a book that encouraged people to experiment with homebrewing and objectively analyze the results…
Obviously, I agree with you, Ken. If you’re getting good results, then you’re doing it right no matter what others say. Of course, you can look at good results a couple ways…first, do you enjoy your own beer? Second, what does an objective blind evaluation tell you? I think you’ve covered both of those bases and know that you’re making good beer on both levels. The way I advanced my brewing was to read a lot online, learn who had a clue and who was just regurgitating, and experiment with everything that made sense. I decided for myself. I came up with a lot of things that flew in the face of homebrewing tradition, but I made great beer. I think that’s the direction you’re heading.[/quote]
Agreed. First, I love my beer and I love to see others drinking my beer with enthusiasm. If I make a beer that I don’t like and it’s because of a process error, I want to know what I did and make sure that I don’t do it again. Also, this idea of using a small starter tells me that if I pitch the starter when the yeast appears to be very active, I’m going to get a quick start and I’m going to end up with good beer. No science behind it at all (as is the case with most of my brewing), just seems logical to me to pitch active, healthy yeast and if I’m not pitching as much yeast as others say I should, it’s still working which is good with me. Cheers!
And I prefer to let the starter ferment out, crash and decant…and I make good beer, too! There are as lot of roads to the same destination and we all get to choose our own!
And I prefer to let the starter ferment out, crash and decant…and I make good beer, too! There are as lot of roads to the same destination and we all get to choose our own![/quote]
There’s a reason or a cause behind everything. You can choose to ignore it, label it your own “the way I’ve always done it” or research and figure it out.
There’s a reason why pitching an active starter is as effective as pitching a stepped up starter for the beers you are making. Now make bigger beers, does the same hold true? Make smaller beers, does the same hold true?
“pitch active, healthy yeast” is just general brewing knowledge/practice.
Who are these “others” that are “telling” you to pitch more yeast? False monikers on forums?
What’s the science behind the cake you bake? You don’t really know, you just combine the ingredients and bingo-bango you’ve got cake. What’s the science behind the car you drive? You don’t really know, you just get in and go.
Not arguing with you or demeaning you, nor am I saying that your brewing is ineffective, but to say there is no science behind it, just isn’t true.
Not to put words in Ken’s mouth but I think he was saying there is no science behind his decision to do things a certain way, not that there is no science behind the process of brewing.
Not to put words in Ken’s mouth but I think he was saying there is no science behind his decision to do things a certain way, not that there is no science behind the process of brewing.[/quote]
Not to put words in Matts mouth, but I think he was saying that Ken was saying that our hobby is a combination of both art and science. If the physical process is not understood to the nth degree, that in no way diminishes the craft of the brewer, especially one who seems to be as accomplished as Ken.
Not to put words in Ken’s mouth but I think he was saying there is no science behind his decision to do things a certain way, not that there is no science behind the process of brewing.[/quote]
Not to put words in Matts mouth, but I think he was saying that Ken was saying that our hobby is a combination of both art and science. If the physical process is not understood to the nth degree, that in no way diminishes the craft of the brewer, especially one who seems to be as accomplished as Ken.[/quote]
Well, if Steeler D is sayin’ what he thinks Matt is sayin’ what he things Ken is sayin’ then you’ve got my back up against the wall and I’ll just have to fight ya’ll! *
Yeah, definitely wasn’t saying that there isn’t science behind it. I’m also not saying I choose to ignore anything but I am saying that I seem to make great beer without make as large of a starter as many people have mentioned to me. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard “that starter is too small” or “you really need to bump that starter up 2 or 3 times” or “you’re going to have about half the yeast you really need to brew that beer”.
Gang: thanks for sticking up for me! I don’t want to take stickboy down all by myself! Cheers to everyone.
