So, I started brewing beer. It seemed like the obvious thing to do. I did a fair amount of research on equipment, and rather than buying one of the kits that every site sells their own version of, I pieced together what I wanted and left out what I didn’t want. I got everything from Rebel Brewer and Northern Brewer. I also read. A lot. I was a little surprised at the huge amount of information out there regarding homebrewing. I’m also surprised at how much really good information there is out there. The one problem that I have run into, though, is that most non-printed sources (e.g. forums, like Homebrew Talk, YouTube videos, and videos available for purchase) give a lot of anecdotal and empirical evidence. “I brew like this and it works, so you should too” is the general mindset of anyone who answers a question. This is, perhaps not surprisingly, something I find intensely frustrating, particularly because I’m fairly well trained in evaluating scientific literature. If it’s not an experiment, I really don’t want to hear it. I know better than to expect that from the internet, but every once in a while some actual experimentation does float to the surface. Amateur experiments are better than none at all. And there is also a small cadre of researchers who really do run legitimate, complicated experiments, and publish their work, if not in brewing journals then probably in their own books. This is what I find most interesting and important, because it lays the foundation for all future beer brewing. As I understand it, contemporary homebrewing fundamentals have changed drastically every decade or so because of all of the new information that comes out.
Humans have been brewing beer for over 10,000 years (can you believe it?), but the product was almost entirely created by chance throughout most of that time. Even though there have been centralized breweries for the past thousand years (2040 AD should be the 1000 year mark), they didn’t even know that yeast was what was making beer (and wine, cider, mead, etc.) awesome until Louis Pasteur in the 1800s. Considering the paramount importance of yeast in making beer, it’s safe to say that they were mostly winging it, although empirically they were getting better at it without understanding why. What’s more, we’ve only been doing real research specifically on brewing for a few decades, and it’s not exactly something you can major in in college (well, there are a handful of schools in the country that have brewing programs, I think). So it takes some passionate and talented guys to move onward in the world of brew science.
All that being said, the science obviously isn’t that important to brewing since they’ve been doing fine without it for 10,000 years. Even now, many (most?) homebrewers are just following a handful of steps and waiting patiently for beer to come out the other end. But you know me, and I can’t leave well enough alone, so I’ve got to do everything ‘right.’ I want high-quality reproducible beer, and I want to know how and why. I want to leave as little up to chance as possible, so I can say “I did this because I want that.” So I have done more reading than the average homebrewer (I suspect), and my records (yes, I keep records; many don’t, however… that is simply unconscionable to me) are fairly meticulous. Through years of lab work (especially chemistry), I learned to write down all of the information you have as often as possible, because once something changes, you may never be able to get back to that point again. Beer can be such a unique experience, I think it fits that mold rather perfectly.
So what to brew first? That was the most difficult, decision, I think, after I convinced myself to drop the cash and get started. I wanted something quick (waiting is such an endeavor, especially in the beginning), but modestly complex. Not simple, but not something that would blow your mouth away, like a Belgian Strong Dark Ale or Russian Imperial Stout. Those are also much more involved beers and, well, I haven’t done this before. I finally decided on two kits, both from Northern Brewer (I like their ingredient and kit list better than Rebel Brewer). First was the Patersbier. It’s a light Belgian, and I was particularly intrigued by the explanation that this is what Belgian monks would brew for themselves rather than sell. For the second, I went with Oud Bruin de Table. This one was less calculated and more of a shot in the dark. I was not terribly familiar with Oud Bruin going into it, but the description sold me on it.
This entry has gone on long enough, so I’ll cut it here. This blog is going to predominantly serve as a reference to me, to aid in my record keeping and such. I also enjoy writing. I also figured some of my friends would be interested in following my beer exploits, so now it’s simple and I don’t have to deal with the obfuscation that geography provides. I’m also going to teach you about beer (spread the gospel, if you will). Feel free to leave comments as you please, ask questions, etc. Next time around I should leave my first set of notes (and pictures) for the Patersbier.