Author: Denny Conn

In the relatively short amount of time I’ve been doing this Brülosophy thing, I’ve had some really interesting experiences that have included meeting and developing relationships with a few awesome people, many of whom were inspirations to me long before I started writing about my silly homebrewing adventures. One of these folks is Denny Conn, a dude I was first introduced to over 5 years ago when I stumbled on his Cheap ‘n’ Easy Batch Sparge Brewing article, a how-to that served as the final push for me to jump into all grain brewing. In the following years, I developed a rather strong appreciation for Denny’s brewing philosophy of making the best beer possible while having the most fun possible while doing the least work possible. Imagine my surprise when he and his writing partner, Drew Beechum, asked me if I’d like to review their new (at the time) book, Experimental Homebrewing. Since then, Denny and I have communicated fairly frequently about homebrew experimentation, among other things.

While eating breakfast one morning at NHC 2015, I asked Denny how people responded when he first started sharing his experiment results, particularly if he ever got shit for it. His response was immediate and confirmed my own experience. I proceeded to share with him some of the feedback I’d received since starting the xBmt series, which turned into a borderline philosophical discussion about the extent to which some go to uphold their convictions that conventional methods are the best. Eventually, the idea of came up of Denny penning an article to readers of Brülosophy, an open letter wherein he would layout his thoughts, raw and uncensored, about what it is we’re doing here. With the draft of his and Drew’s upcoming book submitted to the publisher, he found some time to share his perspectives. I suspect this will incite certain feelings in some, please do not hesitate to share yours in the comments section below!

Dear readers,

Marshall and I talked about me writing this a few months ago and I’ve been procrastinating, trying to figure how to start off without insulting anyone. I’ve given up and I claim the privilege of old age, so I just want to say…

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH SOME HOMEBREWERS THAT THEY DON’T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THINGS THAT CHALLENGE THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM?????

Marshall has told me a few times about people accusing him of ruining homebrewing by doing experiments that challenge or contradict the “information” that’s been printed in books or circulated by word of mouth for so many years. Really? Ruining homebrewing? Says who? Who made the rules and who’s keeping score? Homebrewing is a fucking hobby and it’s up to you how you want to do it. People like Marshall, Drew Beechum, me, and a lot of others are only concerned with giving homebrewers accurate information based on our own experience in the hope that they will find the information useful and employ it to make their own homebrewing hobby more fun and rewarding. Because that’s what it’s all about– fun. If you’re stressing over homebrewing, you’re doing something wrong.

This is not a new phenomenon. Around 2000, I began experimenting with the technique of batch sparging. There were almost no homebrewers doing it back then and I was continually told that it wouldn’t work, it would lead to low efficiency. One homebrew shop owner even reportedly told a guy asking about it that it would make “dirty beer,” whatever that is! But you know what? Not one of the people who dissed batch sparging had ever actually tried it! Once people did, they saw it was a valid way to homebrew, every bit as efficient as other all grain methods and it produced beer equally as great. I’ve judged a lot of beer and never once have I said, “Damn, this beer tastes like it was fly (or batch) sparged.” According to some surveys, batch sparging is now the most popular way to conduct an all grain homebrew. I even know of a small commercial brewery that batch sparges and achieves efficiency in the mid to upper 90% range. What happened? People actually tried it for themselves and found that the conventional wisdom was wrong.

Another amusing and frustrating example was when I conducted an experiment to determine the effect decoction has on beer. I enlisted homebrewers from around the world to brew two batches of the same beer, one using an infusion mash and the other a decoction mash. There were 5 beers brewed and a total of 42 tasters from around the world. When the findings came out that there was not a preference for decocted beers, people went crazy. The general reaction was disbelief, people felt like if they put so much effort into something, it must make a difference! Then there were the chemistry people– since chemical changes are definitely happening, it must make a difference! There was even a well known BJCP Master judge who claimed that the tasters must have “muddled palates.” Right. Why not just accept the conclusion? Because reality differed from your beliefs?

So, where did all of this conventional wisdom come from? Much of it originates from homebrew authors basing their ideas on commercial brewing practices. While some of the things commercial brewers do, and the reasons they do them, apply to us as homebrewers, much more does not. Commercial brewers have very different equipment and goals than we do, and the scale they brew on often dictates their practices. Just because a commercial brewery does something a particular way doesn’t necessarily mean homebrewers would be advised to emulate that. As HOMEbrewers, we should revel in the differences, take advantage of the things that we can do that commercial brewers can’t do. Not slavishly emulate them because some guy who wrote a book told us that’s what we should do. Too often those people are just repeating what they read in some other book without actually testing it on their own. When I began brewing, one of the most popular homebrew books stated emphatically that if you had pets you would always brew infected beer and that if you wanted to be a good brewer you needed to get rid of your pets! The same guy also said not to brew if you had a cold because the beer could get infected! To this day, remnants of that myth persist and I often see questions about it in beer and homebrew discussion forums.

One of Marshall’s latest experiments concerned the need to do a 90 minute boil when using pils malt. His results, which mirrored mine and many others, is that it’s not necessary. Yet when I discuss these results with people, most of them are resistant to trying it. Why? Because they’ve been told by books and the conventional wisdom that you have to do it! With all due respect to the people who wrote these books, many of them my friends, I emphatically say, “horse puckey!” I have never seen any indication that any of these people who advocate for long boils have actually tried a shorter one to see what happens. They are simply repeating what they have always heard or been told by commercial brewers. The fact that homebrew conditions are very different from commercial conditions gives us the freedom to use a different procedure. Why should we limit ourselves the way commercial brewers have to?

Okay, so after all this ranting, what’s the takeaway? It comes down to pretty much one thing: be critical of what you’re told. The best way to do this is to try things for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Don’t automatically believe things you’re told, whether it’s from Marshall, Drew, me, John Palmer, Charlie Papazian, or whoever.

But now many of you might be saying, “I only get to brew occasionally. I don’t want to use my precious brew time experimenting. I want someone to tell me what to do.” Fair enough, that’s understandable. If this is the case, it’s important to look for advice from people who have a track record, people who have actually tried things for themselves, evaluated them objectively, and openly share their results with the brewing community. That’s the way I approached learning about homebrewing and it’s served me well. I collected a lot of information from various sources, then evaluated the validity of those sources. When one of them seemed experienced and knowledgeable, I tried their methods. Then I decided what worked for me and what didn’t, but I was starting from a base of a trusted source. That’s what I advise all of you to do too… and experiments like those Marshall does are some of the best sources you can find. Don’t be afraid to try something that’s not in a book or that’s different from what you’ve heard. Those sources may never have tried what the contrary methods are and have no basis for their recommendations. Always look for personal experience and objective evaluation… always! Don’t proclaim that someone is “ruining the hobby” until you have personal experience with what they say. And always remember the mantra: The best beer possible with the least effort possible while having the most fun possible.

Be a HOMEbrewer!

Denny Conn

It’s probably obvious why I appreciate Denny as much as I do, he speaks candidly and passionately about homebrewing precisely because he loves it so much. In this letter, he addresses a logical fallacy that runs rampant in this hobby, our tendency to appeal to authority when it comes to deciding what best practices are. And it makes sense, homebrewing isn’t the cheapest hobby, particularly when you factor in the time it takes to make a batch, so relying on trusted (vocal?) sources is a pretty good option. I think the point Denny is trying to make, something I wholeheartedly agree with, is that the hobby benefits when information is shared openly and any attempts to stifle the sharing of this information is invariably more detrimental than it is good.

I believe it behooves us all to acknowledge the role played by another logical fallacy, one that perpetually lurks in the shadows of our subconscious, covertly encouraging us to seek and interpret only information that confirms our beliefs while discounting that which contradicts our convictions– confirmation bias. When I accept as principle a particular way of doing something, any opposing perspectives will naturally be interpreted as a threat, which can only be ameliorated via open-minded consideration and humble acceptance that what I think may not necessarily be absolutely right… at least always.

Ultimately, I couldn’t care less if people change their processes or not as a result of the xBmt results. Despite being a huge personal fan of trying things for myself prior to accepting anything as truth, my main point is to provide information about homebrewing to give homebrewers (myself included) something to think about. Whether one chooses to fly or batch sparge, boil for 90 or 15 minutes, ferment warm or cool, pitch from a starter or a vial, whatever, it doesn’t impact my way of doing things, a way that’s based hugely off of my own personal experience and remains as flexible as a seasoned gymnast. The purpose of Brülosophy is not, has never been, and will never be to provide brewers with a how-to guide for making beer, plenty of those already exist. Rather, I trust all brewers are smart enough to use the information we share as a jumping-off point for further exploration and to inform their own brewing decisions without turning it into the latest version of conventional wisdom. Cheers!

Email Denny directly: denny@experimentalbrew.com

Support Brülosophy In Style!

All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!

Follow Brülosophy on:

| Read More |

18 Ideas to Help Simplify Your Brew Day

7 Considerations for Making Better Homebrew

List of completed exBEERiments

How-to: Harvest yeast from starters

How-to: Make a lager in less than a month

| Good Deals |

Brand New 5 gallon ball lock kegs discounted to $75 at Adventures in Homebrewing

ThermoWorks Super-Fast Pocket Thermometer On Sale for $19 – $10 discount

Sale and Clearance Items at MoreBeer.com

If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support Us page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!

Advertisements

Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

Email



Like this: Like Loading...