Homebrewers Association | AHA Forum

General Category => General Homebrew Discussion => Topic started by: denny on August 08, 2016, 09:49:37 am

Title: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: denny on August 08, 2016, 09:49:37 am
I doubt most people here will be to shocked....

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/how-to-brew/6-common-homebrew-myths-denny-conn/
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: dmtaylor on August 08, 2016, 09:52:44 am
Nice to see these things all summed up in one place!  Nice job, man.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: HoosierBrew on August 08, 2016, 10:15:01 am
Yep, nice work. They should pass out copies to all new brewers at the LHBS.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: denny on August 08, 2016, 10:38:05 am
Thanks!
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: homoeccentricus on August 08, 2016, 11:19:41 am
So, mutatis mutandis i have to rehydrate my dry yeast or else it's yeast zombie time?
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: dmtaylor on August 08, 2016, 11:26:38 am
So, mutatis mutandis i have to rehydrate my dry yeast or else it's yeast zombie time?

That one, it depends who you ask.  Folks seem to still be split about 50/50 on this one.  Personally I'm a sprinkler, I think I only rehydrated once in my life and for why I don't know.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: denny on August 08, 2016, 11:28:00 am
So, mutatis mutandis i have to rehydrate my dry yeast or else it's yeast zombie time?

Nope....
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: homoeccentricus on August 08, 2016, 11:32:05 am
Sorry, I was just joking.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: denny on August 08, 2016, 11:51:18 am
Sorry, I was just joking.

Yeah, but ya never know...;)
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: lupulus on August 08, 2016, 12:49:17 pm
Denny,
Would you be so kind to expand your rationale on HSA/ HSO being included in your myth list?
Bamforth never said that HSA was not a problem, but that he needed to be convinced that it makes better beer; in an interview with John Palmer he told a story of how by controlling oxidation he changed the beer so much that customers sent the beer back. He also mentioned that there are many scientists who argue the evidence of HSO is compelling. See Künze, Narziss, and the chapter from Gresser in the Handbook of Brewing.
Personally, I am not yet convinced that HSO affects the final beer; but I judge there is enough evidence to call it an area of healthy debate in the brewing community.
Looking forward to your expanded review on the subject.  8)
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: denny on August 08, 2016, 01:13:46 pm
Denny,
Would you be so kind to expand your rationale on HSA/ HSO being included in your myth list?
Bamforth never said that HSA was not a problem, but that he needed to be convinced that it makes better beer; in an interview with John Palmer he told a story of how by controlling oxidation he changed the beer so much that customers sent the beer back. He also mentioned that there are many scientists who argue the evidence of HSO is compelling. See Künze, Narziss, and the chapter from Gresser in the Handbook of Brewing.
Personally, I am not yet convinced that HSO affects the final beer; but I judge there is enough evidence to call it an area of healthy debate in the brewing community.
Looking forward to your expanded review on the subject.  8)

I included it not because it's necessarily a myth, but because so many people think that it is. 
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: BrewBama on August 08, 2016, 01:21:42 pm
Good list.  I've been on a dry yeast kick to the point that my liquid yeast "laboratory equipment' is getting dusty.  LOL
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: dls5492 on August 08, 2016, 01:49:34 pm
Thank you so much, Denny. I am making sure every one in our club reads it. Good information.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: chumley on August 08, 2016, 02:53:09 pm
A good list, but I would quibble with the liquid vs. dry yeasts.  I would agree that they are equivalent for neutral yeasts (lagers, American ale), but for those styles where you want the yeast to produce esters and phenols, such as Belgians, British, and German weissbiers, I find all the dry yeasts lacking compared to the liquid varieties that are available.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: dmtaylor on August 08, 2016, 02:59:30 pm
A good list, but I would quibble with the liquid vs. dry yeasts.  I would agree that they are equivalent for neutral yeasts (lagers, American ale), but for those styles where you want the yeast to produce esters and phenols, such as Belgians, British, and German weissbiers, I find all the dry yeasts lacking compared to the liquid varieties that are available.

Probably because we all tend to overpitch all those styles, and dry yeast is just so gosh darn healthy and shelf stable.  Try just 1/4 packet for 5 gallons in future and see if you still have complaints.  Same concept goes for liquid yeasts with those styles, actually.  Try a severe underpitch and see if quality improves.  Those yeasts need a lot of stress to produce the wonderful phenols and esters that we all love.  If you pitch everything according to mrmalty.com, your Belgians (maybe) and hefeweizens (especially) will tend to turn out too clean.

Now as for the British styles.... yeah, S-04 kind of sucks.  Notty is alright but still too clean and not English enough to be a true English yeast.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: denny on August 08, 2016, 03:09:41 pm
A good list, but I would quibble with the liquid vs. dry yeasts.  I would agree that they are equivalent for neutral yeasts (lagers, American ale), but for those styles where you want the yeast to produce esters and phenols, such as Belgians, British, and German weissbiers, I find all the dry yeasts lacking compared to the liquid varieties that are available.

Didn't I say that?  I intended to!
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: HoosierBrew on August 08, 2016, 03:34:22 pm
A good list, but I would quibble with the liquid vs. dry yeasts.  I would agree that they are equivalent for neutral yeasts (lagers, American ale), but for those styles where you want the yeast to produce esters and phenols, such as Belgians, British, and German weissbiers, I find all the dry yeasts lacking compared to the liquid varieties that are available.


I agree. S05 and 34/70, being neutral, perform nicely enough. But when I brew a beer where I want some yeast character, it's liquid all the way. Just me.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: BrewBama on August 08, 2016, 04:01:11 pm
I brewed my latest English Pale Ale with Mangrove Jacks Burton Union. Plenty of English character there. I understand it was replaced with Liberty Bell. YMMV


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: pete b on August 08, 2016, 06:07:52 pm
Does anyone really think that the olive oil thing is a "common myth"?
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: erockrph on August 08, 2016, 09:18:16 pm
A good list, but I would quibble with the liquid vs. dry yeasts.  I would agree that they are equivalent for neutral yeasts (lagers, American ale), but for those styles where you want the yeast to produce esters and phenols, such as Belgians, British, and German weissbiers, I find all the dry yeasts lacking compared to the liquid varieties that are available.
I think the reason that liquid yeast is better for specialty styles is primarily because of the specific choices available. If there was a dry equivalent of 1762 or 3787, I would be surprised if you couldn't make a good Belgian ale with it.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: juggabrew303 on August 08, 2016, 10:09:42 pm
Very nice article Denny, and good bedtime story. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: toby on August 09, 2016, 09:08:09 am
Denny,
Would you be so kind to expand your rationale on HSA/ HSO being included in your myth list?

Primarily because it has been a boogeyman for so long, and that the myth part is not that it exists, but rather whether it will ruin your beer at the homebrew level.  For a long time, it was treated like that.  The monster under the bed.  The simple fact is that at a homebrew level, its effects are not something the average homebrewer needs to be concerned with.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: denny on August 09, 2016, 09:30:44 am
Does anyone really think that the olive oil thing is a "common myth"?

Unfortunately, yes.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: chumley on August 09, 2016, 10:23:07 am
Well, olive oil may be a myth, but a myth that never that never really meant much.  I used to add a pinprick drop of olive oil to my starters, figuring that since I didn't own a stir plate, it couldn't do any harm. And, it probably never made any difference since I aerated the starters before I added the yeast.

I would suggest one more homebrew myth:  "Always perform a diacetyl rest on your lagers once primary fermentation is complete."  It's similar to olive oil, a diacetyl rest is meaningless in terms of how your beer turns out.  And its more common than the olive oil myth.   
Title: q
Post by: blair.streit on August 09, 2016, 10:33:40 am
Denny,
Would you be so kind to expand your rationale on HSA/ HSO being included in your myth list?

Primarily because it has been a boogeyman for so long, and that the myth part is not that it exists, but rather whether it will ruin your beer at the homebrew level.  For a long time, it was treated like that.  The monster under the bed.  The simple fact is that at a homebrew level, its effects are not something the average homebrewer needs to be concerned with.
And for me being a below-average homebrewer, it's even less of a concern ;)

I agree that the attention given to HSA is particularly troublesome in contexts where we're trying to teach new all-grain brewers. If we could create an accurate priority list indicating where new all-grain brewers should focus their energy, in my mind a fundamental understanding of controlling mash pH (for example) would deliver way more bang for the buck than similar effort applied to minimizing HSA.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever seen anything like this? I'm thinking of it as a kind of Maslow's hierarchy of brewing needs?

Anyway, I respect the continued debate and the fact that scientifically HSA is real. Determining the extent to which it impacts flavor and shelf-life will likely take years, and I'm excited to see where it goes. In the meantime, if we're mindful of the context it seems like we can adequately address the topic of HSA without it sucking up all of the "oxygen" required for other topics (yes, pun completely intended).

Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: Biran on August 09, 2016, 11:42:56 am
Denny, out of curiosity why do you sparge with 185-190 degree water?
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: denny on August 09, 2016, 11:52:51 am
Denny, out of curiosity why do you sparge with 185-190 degree water?

A leftover from the days when I did a mash out.  But I've found it increases my efficiency slightly and helps me get to a boil just a bit sooner.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: Joe Sr. on August 09, 2016, 12:38:21 pm
A good list, but I would quibble with the liquid vs. dry yeasts.  I would agree that they are equivalent for neutral yeasts (lagers, American ale), but for those styles where you want the yeast to produce esters and phenols, such as Belgians, British, and German weissbiers, I find all the dry yeasts lacking compared to the liquid varieties that are available.

The dry yeasts today are worlds away from what was available back when I started.  Liquid strains were definitely preferable to the packs of "ale yeast" or even the Munton's.  I think the "myth" is simply a persistent bias from the days when it was true.

These days, depending on what you are brewing, dry and liquid are equally good choices.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: homoeccentricus on August 09, 2016, 02:27:34 pm
Does anyone really think that the olive oil thing is a "common myth"?

Unfortunately, yes.
In BE/NL the myth is still strong.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: MJK on August 09, 2016, 06:33:00 pm
Thanks Denny
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: Hooper on August 09, 2016, 08:50:51 pm
160 brews in and still a novice...but I believe a few things...

1) Keep your grain bed below 168 F. The brews that I sparged with 190 F  tasted grainy...I have not had that since I started keeping the temp below 168 F...Decoction does not seem to cause this grainy taste...I don't know why.

2) HSA is real and avoid it to avoid that wet cardboard taste that won't be apparent until you are alone and slowly assess that great brew...

3) Dry yeast is great...but the best beers I've made are always from liquid yeast...or yeast from commercial beers...

4) If you ferment low for 7 days...you can finish in the house at 76 ambient with no adverse affects...

5) O2 aeration helps the beers ferment faster but probably doesn't change the finished product much...I choose to aerate after trying it both ways...with and without O2.

6) Is that EVOO you are using...Rachel Rae would be proud.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: BrewBama on August 10, 2016, 05:46:37 am
A good list, but I would quibble with the liquid vs. dry yeasts.  I would agree that they are equivalent for neutral yeasts (lagers, American ale), but for those styles where you want the yeast to produce esters and phenols, such as Belgians, British, and German weissbiers, I find all the dry yeasts lacking compared to the liquid varieties that are available.

The dry yeasts today are worlds away from what was available back when I started.  Liquid strains were definitely preferable to the packs of "ale yeast" or even the Munton's.  I think the "myth" is simply a persistent bias from the days when it was true.

These days, depending on what you are brewing, dry and liquid are equally good choices.

+1. There are some really good options out there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: q
Post by: jeffy on August 10, 2016, 06:54:18 am
Denny,
Would you be so kind to expand your rationale on HSA/ HSO being included in your myth list?

Primarily because it has been a boogeyman for so long, and that the myth part is not that it exists, but rather whether it will ruin your beer at the homebrew level.  For a long time, it was treated like that.  The monster under the bed.  The simple fact is that at a homebrew level, its effects are not something the average homebrewer needs to be concerned with.
And for me being a below-average homebrewer, it's even less of a concern ;)

I agree that the attention given to HSA is particularly troublesome in contexts where we're trying to teach new all-grain brewers. If we could create an accurate priority list indicating where new all-grain brewers should focus their energy, in my mind a fundamental understanding of controlling mash pH (for example) would deliver way more bang for the buck than similar effort applied to minimizing HSA.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever seen anything like this? I'm thinking of it as a kind of Maslow's hierarchy of brewing needs?

Anyway, I respect the continued debate and the fact that scientifically HSA is real. Determining the extent to which it impacts flavor and shelf-life will likely take years, and I'm excited to see where it goes. In the meantime, if we're mindful of the context it seems like we can adequately address the topic of HSA without it sucking up all of the "oxygen" required for other topics (yes, pun completely intended).
Denny sited Marshall's experiment with hsa as having no significant difference, but failed to mention that he consumed all the beer from both batches well before it had time to develop any oxidation.  Sure both batches were the same when fresh, but wouldn't you expect that?
Then again how many homebrewers let their beer sit around for long enough to become oxidized?
Title: Re: q
Post by: brewinhard on August 10, 2016, 07:57:50 am
Denny,
Would you be so kind to expand your rationale on HSA/ HSO being included in your myth list?

Primarily because it has been a boogeyman for so long, and that the myth part is not that it exists, but rather whether it will ruin your beer at the homebrew level.  For a long time, it was treated like that.  The monster under the bed.  The simple fact is that at a homebrew level, its effects are not something the average homebrewer needs to be concerned with.
And for me being a below-average homebrewer, it's even less of a concern ;)

I agree that the attention given to HSA is particularly troublesome in contexts where we're trying to teach new all-grain brewers. If we could create an accurate priority list indicating where new all-grain brewers should focus their energy, in my mind a fundamental understanding of controlling mash pH (for example) would deliver way more bang for the buck than similar effort applied to minimizing HSA.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever seen anything like this? I'm thinking of it as a kind of Maslow's hierarchy of brewing needs?

Anyway, I respect the continued debate and the fact that scientifically HSA is real. Determining the extent to which it impacts flavor and shelf-life will likely take years, and I'm excited to see where it goes. In the meantime, if we're mindful of the context it seems like we can adequately address the topic of HSA without it sucking up all of the "oxygen" required for other topics (yes, pun completely intended).
Denny sited Marshall's experiment with hsa as having no significant difference, but failed to mention that he consumed all the beer from both batches well before it had time to develop any oxidation.  Sure both batches were the same when fresh, but wouldn't you expect that?
Then again how many homebrewers let their beer sit around for long enough to become oxidized?

That was my one concern with that exbeeriment. He really didn't give any proper time to allow oxidation to rear its ugly head. I bet there would have been some major long term issues (3-4+ mos out) if the beer was aged and sampled for oxidation.
Title: Re: q
Post by: reverseapachemaster on August 10, 2016, 09:09:44 am
Denny sited Marshall's experiment with hsa as having no significant difference, but failed to mention that he consumed all the beer from both batches well before it had time to develop any oxidation.  Sure both batches were the same when fresh, but wouldn't you expect that?
Then again how many homebrewers let their beer sit around for long enough to become oxidized?

That is among the problems with that particular experiment.

The other side of the conversation is that the GBF folks suggest their low DO method produces a beer that is immediately more flavorful than beers produced with more DO. I would expect if DO has such a profound effect without blasting the heck out of a beer with oxygen then we would see a noticeable effect by pumping an unnatural amount of oxygen into a beer. However, there may be a threshold for DO that homebrew typically exceeds in which case the experiment tested two beers already above the threshold and beyond the threshold perhaps we only see further staling over the long term.
Title: Re: q
Post by: Joe Sr. on August 10, 2016, 09:20:10 am
Then again how many homebrewers let their beer sit around for long enough to become oxidized?

I've got beers that stick around for awhile.  Some on purpose (strong beers that I'm aging) some just because I swap out kegs or don't drink them.

With purged kegs, the beers stay good for longer than you might expect.  Bottled from the keg, they tend to oxidize.

I haven't had a keg that's turned into wet cardboard yet. 
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: denny on August 10, 2016, 09:40:23 am
160 brews in and still a novice...but I believe a few things...

1) Keep your grain bed below 168 F. The brews that I sparged with 190 F  tasted grainy...I have not had that since I started keeping the temp below 168 F...Decoction does not seem to cause this grainy taste...I don't know why.

2) HSA is real and avoid it to avoid that wet cardboard taste that won't be apparent until you are alone and slowly assess that great brew...

3) Dry yeast is great...but the best beers I've made are always from liquid yeast...or yeast from commercial beers...

4) If you ferment low for 7 days...you can finish in the house at 76 ambient with no adverse affects...

5) O2 aeration helps the beers ferment faster but probably doesn't change the finished product much...I choose to aerate after trying it both ways...with and without O2.

6) Is that EVOO you are using...Rachel Rae would be proud.

1.) your pH must have been off, which also explains why a decoction didn't show the effects. I have hundreds of batches with the grain bed hotter than 168 and no problem
2.) _can_ be real, but easy to avoid
3.) dry yeast has never had a negative effect on the quality of my beer
4.) yep
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: lupulus on August 10, 2016, 10:31:15 am
I agree with the postings about the Brulosophy experiment on HSA.
Normally when one plans a research study, one does a thorough literature review to learn how other experiments that studied HSA/HSO were designed, and use this review to create the best possible design to answer this question. The best review to of the effects of HSO in flavor stability is in the Handbook of Brewing, and the data reviewed there indeed find a very significant effect in the forced aging test, but not in fresh beer. Also given the effects of oxidation at mash-in reported in Künze, a better design would have been three treatments, one with extreme oxidation control (aka LODO), one with regular homebrewing practices, and one with the extreme whipping. Also, to minimize confounding factors, I would have avoided caramel malts, an estery yeast (WLP002) and a significant load of aroma hops. If I were to choose, a Helles with very low to no hop flavor or aroma will provide the researchers the best way to pick up a significant difference should there be one. And of course, do the testing with fresh and with aged beer.
As a side note, some people may suggest using an american lager as the experimental model, but I think the clean maltiness of a good helles would provide a better control beer than a pale american lager.
Another improvement I would suggest to the Brulosophy team is to at least give a BJCP score to each beer. It is more likely one will pick up a significant difference (should there be one) when your control beer is a 40 point extremely clean beer than when your control is a 25 point beer with many confounding aromas and flavors.
I do hope this reads as a constructive contribution. This was certainly my intention  :)
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: HoosierBrew on August 10, 2016, 10:40:51 am
a better design would have been three treatments, one with extreme oxidation control (aka LODO), one with regular homebrewing practices, and one with the extreme whipping. Also, to minimize confounding factors, I would have avoided caramel malts, an estery yeast (WLP002) and a significant load of aroma hops. If I were to choose, a Helles with very low to no hop flavor or aroma will provide the researchers the best way to pick up a significant difference should there be one. And of course, do the testing with fresh and with aged beer.



This^   I agree that a redo of the experiment would be helpful and that these would be the best criteria IMO.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: lupulus on August 10, 2016, 10:56:27 am
...and one more comment on HSA that I am posting separately to avoid confusing my previous point.

I am sure most of you heard (podcast) or read from Gordon Strong how he adds roasted grains at the end of the mash (vorlauf).  He likes to explain the rationale by stating that it is similar to what happens to coffee when it stays in the pot for a long time.
The scientific explanation for the stale flavor of coffee seems to be oxidation (as far as I read), so it follows that Gordon thinks that if you add dark grains at the beginning of the mash, they get oxidized.
I understand Gordon tested this hypothesis at one NHC conference but I have not seen the formal results. If you trust Gordon is right about adding the dark grains at vorlauf, it seems the most likely benefit of this is avoiding oxidation of these grains.

So, this is yet another HSA/HSO topic that may benefit from further research :-)
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: denny on August 10, 2016, 11:31:16 am
I agree with the postings about the Brulosophy experiment on HSA.
Normally when one plans a research study, one does a thorough literature review to learn how other experiments that studied HSA/HSO were designed, and use this review to create the best possible design to answer this question. The best review to of the effects of HSO in flavor stability is in the Handbook of Brewing, and the data reviewed there indeed find a very significant effect in the forced aging test, but not in fresh beer. Also given the effects of oxidation at mash-in reported in Künze, a better design would have been three treatments, one with extreme oxidation control (aka LODO), one with regular homebrewing practices, and one with the extreme whipping. Also, to minimize confounding factors, I would have avoided caramel malts, an estery yeast (WLP002) and a significant load of aroma hops. If I were to choose, a Helles with very low to no hop flavor or aroma will provide the researchers the best way to pick up a significant difference should there be one. And of course, do the testing with fresh and with aged beer.
As a side note, some people may suggest using an american lager as the experimental model, but I think the clean maltiness of a good helles would provide a better control beer than a pale american lager.
Another improvement I would suggest to the Brulosophy team is to at least give a BJCP score to each beer. It is more likely one will pick up a significant difference (should there be one) when your control beer is a 40 point extremely clean beer than when your control is a 25 point beer with many confounding aromas and flavors.
I do hope this reads as a constructive contribution. This was certainly my intention  :)

I think people are misunderstanding the purpose of Brulosophy experiments.  They are not intended to be rigorously scientific, be-all, end-all information.  They are data points you can use in your own brewing.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: HoosierBrew on August 10, 2016, 11:41:16 am
I think people are misunderstanding the purpose of Brulosophy experiments.  They are not intended to be rigorously scientific, be-all, end-all information.  They are data points you can use in your own brewing.


I agree, Denny. But I would like to see a LODO vs standard exbeeriment, just to satisfy my curiosity. I don't take any of it as hard, scientific evidence, or expect it.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: homoeccentricus on August 10, 2016, 12:28:51 pm
With the other logical possibility with the HSA exbeeriment being that both beers were oxidized.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: brewinhard on August 11, 2016, 10:33:06 am
With the other logical possibility with the HSA exbeeriment being that both beers were oxidized.

Ha!  Wouldn't that be the kicker.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: Hooper on August 11, 2016, 10:57:15 am
I agree HSA is pretty easily avoidable. Mine was an extreme case where I was pouring hot wort through a strainer to remove trub prior to cooling. I started detecting that dreaded wet cardboard taste in brews that were in the keg for a while. I changed my process and that eliminated the problem.
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: blair.streit on August 11, 2016, 12:00:08 pm
With the other logical possibility with the HSA exbeeriment being that both beers were oxidized.
Ha!  Wouldn't that be the kicker.
That's worth considering. Marshall did the HSA Part I XBMT in November 2014, only a couple of months after publishing this about his kegging procedure:

http://brulosophy.com/2014/08/20/from-carboy-to-cup-my-kegging-method/

Quote
Perhaps you’re wondering…
Why don’t you purge your keg with CO2  before filling it with beer?
Truth is, when I started kegging I never considered this option, since my routine has worked fine for me for so long, I see no reason to do anything differently, especially if it adds a step. I’ve made some beer people don’t like, but I’ve never received a comment about oxidized flavors, even in beers that remained in the keg for 10+ weeks.

Assuming the same process was followed in the XBMT, Marshall does appear to inject some CO2 to flush sanitizer through the diptube, but at this point the keg contains an air/CO2 mix -- then he pops the top and fills via a racking cane.

Juxtapose this with the info in this year's NHC presentation where using CO2 to push sanitizer out of a sealed keg and then doing a closed transfer was the only moderately effective way to minimize oxygen pickup at kegging.

Between those two things, I'm willing to postulate that for beers that hang around for only a few months, this same level of oxygen pickup occurring with the packaging methodology would likely overwhelm any HSA-type impacts from oxygen. Based on my own experience, I would say that things like age and recipe likely also factor into how quickly this becomes noticeable (and to what extent).
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: narvin on August 26, 2016, 04:34:08 pm
Here's a myth that I thought was thoroughly debunked, but the recent prices I've paid for beer make me reconsider.

Homebrewing saves you money!

Thinking about the money I invested in homebrewing equipment over the years, it's not that extravagant.  On the other hand, a trip to the beer store and I can be out $200 for beer that lasts a month or two.  Sixers are expensive, four packs even more so, and 750s of anything interesting astronomical.  On the other hand, I can make Geueze that takes some time but the raw ingredients (base malt, raw wheat, old hops) are cheap as hell.  And, if you buy a "real" homebrewing system, the resale market is pretty good if you give it up.

Time to reconsider?    8)
Title: Re: 6 Common Homebrew Myths
Post by: HoosierBrew on August 26, 2016, 05:05:09 pm
Yep, it's time. Even mediocre (or worse) beer is expensive nowadays. Like you said, 4 packs, 750s, sours even more so. My equipment, all in all, isn't extravagant. I cooler mash, but have some toys. But, at some point, you've bought back your equipment by buying much less commercial beer. I think the only argument that levels the playing field is the "your time is money" argument. Except, I'd be doing SOMETHING regardless with my time. Like more expensive hobbies, extra sporting events, concerts, etc. If you're a newb, yeah it'll take some time to recover your equipment costs. But buy grain and hops in bulk, get fairly efficient at what you're doing and it's a no brainer to me. If not, I love it and will keep doing it anyway.