Talk:Homebrewing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This page is within the scope of WikiProject Beer, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Beer on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Beer Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Error in Material section

Winemaking doesn't require a hydrometer. And that is a fact. All the people that think that a hydrometer is necessary have the wrong idea about wine. Making wine is an art. In my country, it is less than art: it is tradition. And traditional methods are based in centuries of experience. Wine was always made by poor people with little instruction (for example, my grandfather made great wines and he only went to school until the third grade and having the third grade in the beginning of the XXth century made him a very lucky peasant).

A summary of the way of making white Vinho Verde (it is Portuguese wine and it's name can be literally translated as "green wine" - the origin of the name is it's unique refreshing taste, combined with a little natural carbonation)

Necessary machinery: - a "ralador" (I really don't know the name in English) that is a machine (hand-cranked or electrical), similar to a pasta maker, with a pair of grooved cylinders that squish grapes (it's use is due to the small dimension of the farms in the Minho region where the large amount of people necessary to trample grapes wasn't available, although trampling can be used too) - a press. - vessels according to the amount of wine to be produced.

Steps: - thoroughly wash the buckets where the grapes are to be collected, the various vessels and machines (this is a VERY important step as mold can ruin a wine. Traditionally, no bread is allowed in a cellar as it can promptly acidify the sweet must. - the grapes are collected and crushed into a open vessel. No such thing as "wine yeast" is necessary as yeast is in the grape's peel (they are NOT to be washed and even little spiders are harmless as they won't make their way to a cask). The juice in the bottom of the vessel is to be drained to another open vessel (i'll call it vessel B). - the crushed grapes are loaded on a press (care must be taken as the volume of must coming out of the press defies common sense) wich should be well packed (don't be afraid of using your hands) and pressing begins (close surveillance is obviously a must). The dripping (and foamy) must is to be pumped or somehow drained to vessel B (fermentation vessel). If the press is hydraulic, it will probably work automatically. If it is a ageing mechanical press, tightening will be necessary day and night (while using such presses, make sure the pin that holds the lever in place will hold it properly and replace it with a strong screw if there is any doubt of it's resistance. When I was about 5 year old I flew across the cellar as the lever's pin somehow failed while I was working the lever. If it hadn't been for a piece of plastic that was in the corner I landed, I might have knocked my head against a stone in the wall.). - the must and the contents of the press will ferment and alcohol vapours (and carbon dioxide) will fill the place (it must be well vented. If it is not, you will find out why people that work in wine cellars blush, smile and laugh so much!). The must will look brown due to oxidation and will have foam (and mosquitoes (not DeHavilland Mosquitoes) will fly around it). - after about a week, the must will get cooler as fermentation slows down. Freshly squished grapes and simple sugars can be added to boost the fermentation process once again but this is done mostly with red wines and is illegal in some legislations. The must can then be placed in a vessel (like a cask) that must not have it's lid or cork on until about February. During this time, the suspended solids will settle down. After racking, the wine will become golden. The cask can then be closed and during spring wine can be bottled, although this will make it more acidic due to dissolved carbon dioxide. Contact with air after this moment will effectively turn wine into vinegar.

Notes: - It's a dirty, sticky and tiring job but very rewarding and educational (tradition has a quality of it's own). - Accidents can occur, so one must never work alone. - Practice makes perfect (and I learned that wine with no chemical treatments tastes a hell lot better this way). - Vineyards in semi-mediterranean climates do not require watering (this can ruin the wine's bouquet and alcohol content, as it will dilute the sugars). - Grapes can be nearly rotting ripe (the sweeter, the better!). - A lot of space and water is necessary for a proper cellar. - Cellars must be cool, dark and the floor should always be rammed earth, never cement, as this will make a cellar with better thermal balance and thunderstorms can ruin wine more easily in a paved cellar. - There is no waste: bad quality wine can be stored in contact with air to get vinegar and both vinegar and the contents of the press can be turned into strong spirits called aguardente vínica (that can be aged to obtain brandy) and aguardente (firewater, has a strong odor, has a great kick and burns so well that sausages can be roasted over it's flame) vinícola respectively. - According to legislation, in some places sparkling wine can be made (or bootlegged) by adding some rye seeds and sugar (about eight seeds and eight teaspoons) to a 750ml strong bottle (asti or champagne bottles) which is then filled with wine and corked. The cork must be held in place with some kind of strong fastener and the bottles should be shaken everyday for a few months to make sure that the second fermentation will be complete. This will make a cloudy wine with lots of carbon dioxide that will make it dry and slightly acidic. Care must be taken as the extra acidity will make alcohol be absorbed much faster and drunkenness will be sudden. - Alcohol abuse has obviously bad consequences. Be responsible.

Any questions to: ruiferreira89@hotmail.com


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.155.112.88 (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Big rewrite

I am in the process of doing a massive rewrite of this page. The information contained in it is not incorrect, just extremely limited in scope. --rimbaud 14:50, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Let me know how I can help. I am also contemplating an entirely separate and more focused beer encyclopedia on a separate site. -- dmcalist 10:30, April 15, 2005

Looks like no one has done anything here for some time. Actually I think the information could stand a good working over and some is actually inaccurate. Being a new Wikipedia wannabe editor I'll wait a couple of weeks for anyone else to claim the rights before I jump in. That'll be around the end of the first week in October '05. -- Bob 18:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Be Bold! Go right ahead and edit the article. If we don't like your changes, we'll let you know. :D --goethean ॐ 18:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] writing a how to

I will be brewing my first batch starting on sunday. I am new to wiki's and do not know how to create the page. I want to make a How To Brew Beer in wikibooks. It can contain recipes and techniques there. It looks like they have How To -> Cookbook so I am not totally sure where to put the page even if I knew how to create it. - whoops forgot to log in --SupIAmMike 20:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distillation?

I took out the part about distillation in the legal section - no one distills beer as far as I know - it makes no sense. Malt extract is very expensive compared to sugar and molasses that is usually used in distillation processes. I question the whole section as far as that goes, as it only applies to the USA.


[edit] External Links Section

This whole thing is kind of a mess. I'm working on cleaning it up. I removed some links that seemed to just be commercial links. I also moved links to homebrew clubs to a seperate section. I hope to subcatacorize all this a bit further to make it clearer in the next couple days and get rid of some links that seem like vanity links to not expecially informative personal pages.Frank 01:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey! You deleted my homebrew club (BrewCommune) links! I replaced them in the effort to expand the online homebrewing community.

  • Sorry. Didn't mean to delete anything legit. Cheers! Frank 20:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I edited a misspelled link for the Northern Brewer forum (removed the "-s" in the URL). --Newcomer [please don't bite me!]

Hi, homebrewchatter.com keeps getting deleted. There is nothing commercial about that site. It's strictly a community for homebrewing discussion. What gives? It's not like homebrewtalk.com where they sell memberships and have ads everywhere. It's free and has a bunch of homebrewers who love to talk beer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ó Flannagáin (talk • contribs)

Please see the relevant sections of the external links guideline and the policy "What Wikipedia is not" particularly:
Also please note that in repeatedly adding the link without any discussion you appeared to be edit warring, which could have gotten you blocked from editing. --Stlemur (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The site's brewing forums are completely viewable without registering. I thought wikipedia was about sharing information. That's all HBC does. And, obviously, I wasn't the only person "edit warring." It takes two people at least. And I was the first to start the discussion, so looks like you could've been blocked from editing as well. I shall add the link again. Please let me know why you delete it if you do.

[edit] Home Mead and Cider Making

Should these be discussed here, on the Mead and cider pages or on new pages entirely? Frank 19:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be great to have distinct articles. --Elliskev 18:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homebrewing not just beer

This is an outstanding article as written, however as the previous editor mentioned it focuses mostly on the honebrewing of beer. While beer homebrewing probably does dominate the hobby, there are many homebrewers (myself among them) who also homebrew wine and cider, and among other things it's not uncommon for people to brew mead, sake, and combinations of any of the above (braggot, etc.)

Maybe this article should lead off by making reference to this fact, and then split into different articles? Not really sure how to reflect the fact that homebrewing really is a diverse hobby.--Caliga10 16:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well--I mentioned this in the heading just above this one. Persnally, I think home wine, mead, cider, sake, etc. making should probably have thier own pages ultimately. They're closesly related but not the same. There's some question as to whether mead or cider making constitutes brewing at all; some people feel the term "brewing" should be reserved strictly for beer. Frank 16:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know you did (I even gave you props, man!) I disagree that the term "brewing" should be reserved strictly for beer, as you might have guessed, but that's just my own opinion of course. Also, the process by which one makes wine and cider is generally similar enough to the beer making process, in terms of tools used, use of yeast, etc. that it seems like there'd be alot of redundancy involved in duplicating that stuff into different articles. The major difference is that wort is generally boiled and hops added to the boil, unless the beer is dry hopped.... but I believe some people follow a similar process to add herbs to mead.--Caliga10 16:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Ultimately, it shouldn't really matter how you or I think of the term "brewing" but common usage (in the interest of NPOV). Anyway, I'm fine w/ whoever wants to take the initiative on actually writing on mead/cider/whatever making just putting it where they think is best at the moment. We can talk all we want about where the info should go but if we aren't actually adding anything we're just blowing smoke. If there's only a small amount of info added on the subjects, it might be better to have it all in one place rather scattered about on stubs. Of course, if there's enough info (and there will be eventually, I assume, just maybe not right away) then each subject merrits its own entry. Frank 17:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too American

The history section is very American centred. I'm sure that other countries have been homebrewing beer as well. Personally, in knowing the history of home brewing, I don't really care that much about Jimmy Carter signing laws. That section should not be the first thing mentioned, but should go closer to the end. Perhaps in a trivia section. WB_Frontier

It's not just the history section that's US-centric. All this stuff about artificial carbonation, and about decent beers being unavailable except as homebrew, is totally alien to my experience in the UK. It even talks about cask-conditioned ale as a "rare and exotic" substance only occasionally encountered. PeteVerdon 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree in principle, but homebrew is force carbonated world-wide with great regularity. Priming with sugar is great for bottling, but advanced homebrewers don't like to wait 2 weeks to drink the beer after it's fermented typically, and prefer to choose the exact amount of carbonation in their beer, given the temperature of the beer fridge / kegerator / etc... It's not artificial, beer carbonated through sugar or a c02 tank are chemically identical, provided there is adequate yeast in suspension to eat the priming sugar. Also, cask-conditioned ale is not "common" anywhere any more than barley wine and labics are, even though they are MORE common in Europe, by no means does the average homebrewer, or even the advanced homebrewer, typically make regular cask conditioned batches. It's extremely time consuming and expensive. pACMANx 18:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Unpasteurised, cask-conditioned ale is "common" in the UK by any definition you care to mention: it is referred to as "real ale", and is served in something like 50% of pubs. The vast majority of British home-brewers make cask-conditioned ale. Unpasteurised "bottle-conditioned" ale is available in most British supermarkets. PeteVerdon is right - this article is highly oriented towards American home-brewing. elvum 15:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I would move the U.S.-centric stuff to Homebrewing in the United States. The U.S.-centric information is actually interesting, but it's probably about 1/3-2/3 of the artcle. The history, legality, and most of the culture sections could all be moved. The homebrewing article should concentrate on process, and maybe somebody could add a little bit of history about the process. Another place where homebrewing is popular is Australia, and a Homebrewing in Australia article might also be in order. Bolwerk 18:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a hugely one-sided view of the craft which completely ignores the separate development and legal frameworks outside the US. DavidP02 22:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
...and rather than just carp, comments like "almost every beer available is pasteurised" is just not true worldwide. There are plenty of unpasteurised beers in the UK both bottle and cask conditioned. DavidP02 23:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think UK contributers are ignoring the conventions of Wikipedia (or at least as they are stand now). This article started as "U.S.-centric." You can either add sections or start a separate article on "Home Brewing in the UK" There is no call to rewrite the article entirely. (as I have been informed by articles started as blatantly "UK centric") Cuvtixo (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not how the convention works. In the specific issue of British or American English in articles which are not necessarily specific to the UK or the US, we use the original author's grammar. This does not mean that articles themselves can use a US-centric POV. I'm re-tagging this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
this US-centric complaint is odd to me. Homebrewing sites at wikepedia have tons of UK-contributed material and in some cases this UK material is quite dominant. Carlw4514 (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Two wrongs don't make a right. By all means please feel free to highlight geoceontricity in other articles for correction in the same way; it can only improve the encyclopedia in the long run. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
A Pissing Contest? [1] I use this phrase advisedly, and want to emphasize that I am not conjuring it up to try to be crude, but just feel it describes my concerns perfectly. What do you call these officious-looking, scolding banners that appear at the top of sections? I need convincing that this business of attaching a banner to various sections, with me attaching one type to this one, you a different one that one, isn't indeed just a pissing contest that, on the contrary, will not improve wikipedia but just trash it up with banners to no purpose.Carlw4514 (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This isn't the place to discuss the aesthetic merits of cleanup tags. Some people like them, some don't, but the project as a whole has agreed that they are a standard way of highlighting article issues (and adding pages to the appropriate cleanup categories). I personally use them to track and improve articles. Users who dislike them can hide them by adding code to their monobook.css files. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Reviewing again the current article, I just do not think a case can be made at this time that any of the sections are US-centric ... UK laws, history and practices are prominently featured (perhaps in its original state this was different). You have failed to convince me this isn't an ancient contest that is still going on to dominate the fire plug with one's own flavor of urine. Being a later dog to the contest I can report that the mixture reeks.Carlw4514 (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
... actually, you're right. I had this confused with homebrewing beer, which definitely still has global-view problems. I'll take th tag off this one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Wow, very nice to see "talk" work like it was supposed to, I'm impressed.Carlw4514 (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

Agreed. Homebrewing has been around for quite a long time-- it was once the safest way to drink water. How about a collaberative effort to summarize the history of homebrewing chronologically and geographically? Where to start? pACMANx 20:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's covered to some extent at History of beer. — goethean ॐ 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough! How about one of those deals where a good synopsis of the history, particularly as it pertains to homebrewing, is here with one of those "click here for full article" deals? I feel that an article on homebrewing should contain some mention - perhaps just in refernce or summary - of the history of the art. Unrelated... Isn't the "enjoyable and rewarding" language in violation of NPOV? pACMANx 23:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ye cats. This article is a link farm.

Wikipedia is not a web directory for everybody and their uncle who knows how to brew beer. I'm about to go on a slash-and-burn effort to weed them out. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 04:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Are Links to the Forums Gone?

These were valuable links that included content that you can't just get at Wikipedia! These should be returned. We do not need everybody and their uncle's website on how to make beer, but listing a few of the prominent forums would be helpful for people who need an interactive environment.

If people want to find a prominent forum for homebrewing, they have Google. Wikipedia is not Google, nor should it be. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 02:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
One of the principle advantages of wikipedia over other fee-paying services is that it offers both well-written analysis of the subject and links to other web-resources. Frankly, having a pretty user name really does not excuse eviscerating an article of some of its most useful content based on a personal preference to make a unique creation look like every other flavour of vanilla in the market. On a further note; if you actually brewed any beer, you might realise that the homebrewing community in each country is proportionately rather small and relies on this kind of information exchange to keep itself alive. Rather than initiate a tit-for-tat reversion, I will leave you to consider this information at your leisure DavidP02 22:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Your arguments are uncompelling in the face of WP:NOT and WP:EL. The fact that homebrewing communities may be small in certain areas of the world is utterly irrelevant to the stated mission of Wikipedia, the core philosophies of Wikipedia, and to the policies outlined at the links above. Ξxtreme Unction 23:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for replying.
I am aware of these policies having recently rejoined wikipedia having lost an old password. The point about the community being small expands into several areas, which are, I regret very pertinent. I guess your main objections would be linking to unverified original research; or, in terms of the links to fora, linking only to those which are mandated by the article. Owing to the small size of the community, many written references contain technical inaccuracies or are simply wrong; (there are notable exceptions). As such, there is an awful lot of nonsense or narrow-view information circulating. I regret that a certain amount of this has been perpetuated by this article. I have pointed out one glaring incidence in the chat here.
Whilst there are a few quality references out there, (UK: Graham Wheeler, Dave Line), alot of the most up to date information can only be found on these fora and their related sites. Some of them have become commercial to support themselves; others, from speaking to their owners and administrators, only hope to make enough from GoogleAds to cover their costs.
In short, I think I'd be the first to delete the clutter and one-step-from-advertising junk that often makes its way into hobby and pastime articles: in fact, I have been. However, with respect and whilst I am sure you have heard this one before, I feel the unction in this case has been somewhat too extreme. DavidP02 08:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Removing external links from an article does not eviscerate it of useful content. Links aren't content. If you think a forum thread meets WP:RS and contains useful facts, integrate its information in the article and cite the thread as a reference. That's why we're here for, not to build a directory to web resources. Femto 13:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A new agenda for Home brewing

Okay - if I have to get down and dirty to make a point, I'm up for it.

DavidP02 - Brief CV

31 years home brewing, 15 years as a technical author, 10 years as a technical trainer, 5 years as a technical examiner and 2 years journalism writing real articles for real paper publications.

[edit] Home brewing header article

1) I have the greatest of respect for the original authors, however this article gets off on the wrong foot from the start. The compact Oxford dictionary define home-brew as beer or other alcoholic liquid brewed at home (p474); as such any article which takes a beer-centred point of view is kind of missing the point. My suggestion would be that home brewing forms a header article that goes into brief detail about the main kinds of alcoholic beverage brewed at home, but leaves the detail for separate, beverage-specific articles.

2) The 1979 start point is wholly US-centred and frankly pointless. It leaves out the traditions in Australia, UK and Europe which have vibrant home-brewing communities and are subject to separate legal frameworks and legislative start points. The history section might more sensibly start from the earliest self-brewing prohibition start point in all these areas and work forwards.

3) It would probably be wise to differentiate the main branches of home brewing and pehaps classify them loosely between lambic, (naturally occuring), yeast methods and those that used introduced yeast cultures. The main types of homebrew, beer, wine, cider, mead and others should then be dealt with separately.

4) The article could then be rounded off with some cultural comment plus some legal warnings by territory. For example, the distilling of malted barley brews makes malt whisky, so the removal of a legal warning about distilling beers was probably inadvisable. Similarly wine becomes brandy, cider becomes calvados and dark sugar brews become rum. This is typically illegal and the article should say as much whilst taking into account territorial differences.

With all due respect to the OED, I've never heard the term "brewing" to refer to anything other than beer, mead (and its variants), and alcoholic cider (and its variants). Winemaking, while chemically a very similar process, is not referred to as "brewing". And, obviously, distillation is a completely different process from a chemical perspective.
Aside from that caveat, I agree with your other points and I agree that this article is in desperate need of a re-write.
All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction
01:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On beer

1) The article falls down rather alot in terms of NPOV, being mostly aimed at the extract brewer. The majority of homebrewers are in fact kit brewers. People who make the leap to extract often quickly make the leap full-grain and I can put up proper statistics to prove it.

Please do so. Published data from a respectable source would be necessary to back up such an assertion. Bri2k1 18:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I had planned to use data on kits from a large kit manufacturer to back up the argumnet but they have taken the data off the web, so I'm a bit stuck on this one for the time being. DavidP02 21:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd be interested in seeing anything you come up with as well; I don't doubt that kits are more popular in a worldwide context, but my own data seems to suggest that extract brewers are largely content to stick with that method. I s'pose it varies a lot with locality and availability of ingredients. MalkavianX 05:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

2) The article completely fails to mention brewing water and water-conditioning; being that beer has only four main ingredients, missing out its largest contituent would seem a glaring oversite.

This has now been dealt with in the brewing liquor section. DavidP02 12:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

3) The prejudice towards pasteurised beer, carbuoys and carbonation is extreme. Whilst these methods are employed, particulalry in the states, they certainly are not universal or necessarily desirable.

4) There is probably as much live yeast in an unpasteurised beer as there is in an apple. I'd love to see a source for the "gas" statement.

5) Basically a complete re-write is necessary taking into account the full range of brewing traditions giving equal weight to kit, extract and all-grain methods.

[edit] On other brews

Im happy to have a go at these as well, but can see that some people have already put themselves down for them.

DavidP02 19:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting Started

[edit] Home brewing history

(I have edited an email address and request for recipes out of this chat).

I am planning to start with the history section. I don't propose to run a full beer history, that is more appropriate for the main beer article. I propose to start with an 1880 British Act which was the earliest I have yet found to legalise, (if taxed), home brewing. This start point will allow a run through of the prohibition and legalisation periods of both the US and Australia. I have a French colleague looking into the position in France and Belgium. I have reasonable sources for most facts and am tidying up the information for a re-draft shortly.

DavidP02 19:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In line with this, I've added a main article reference to the brewing history article.

I have made the very beginnings of a draft to globalise the history section. I have taken out the 'globalize' tag as we now have some historical comment for the UK and Australia.

I have now expanded the history section to cover regulation, liberalisation, the differing development in different countries and some pioneering figures in the craft. (Note to self: Need more and stronger references!) DavidP02 23:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have save the following text for a later move to a more relevant section of the article:-

"Later that same year, Charlie Papazian founded the Association of Brewers. In 1984 Papazian published The Complete Joy of Homebrewing."

I have now reintegrated this back into the text DavidP02 23:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole article needs references adding which I have yet to do.

DavidP02 22:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have also inserted a references section for citings as they come up... DavidP02 22:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Note to self: I need to find some suitable external references wher eI have so far used Wikipedia DavidP02 00:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A polite note on concatenating "home" and "brewing"

The Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam Webster, the American Heritage Dictionary and even the book featured in header picture for this article all agree that the only way to concatenate these two words is with a hyphen or not at all.

"Homebrew" is variously a trade name and many other things; however, with respect, it is neither English nor American English. So, with due regard to the Googlefight fans of this world, please can we agree to use English rather than continue to torture the language to death via a thousand abbreviations... ;-)

DavidP02 22:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem here. The important thing is that the written name and wikipedia title agree. "Googlefight" is just useful for determining common usage (while providing mild amusement). I too prefer the name without concatenation. I'm not sure who copied the content over to here, and all is water under the bridge now, but I think using the "move" tab at the top of the page is preferable to cutting and pasting as it keeps the history all in one place. Just keep this in mind for future reference. -MrFizyx 01:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually a page move is problematic for other reasons. There is a category, and even the article on Charlie Papazian gives his book with the concatenated term. I don't know the style guide policy in great detail without looking--why not hold off on the page move until someone else can give input on the name? -MrFizyx 01:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Now actually checking on the above:
I reckon all of 'em is good English and we just need to pick one. -MrFizyx 03:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of the article

I have moved all new content from Home brewing back to here (Homebrewing) until the name issue can be resolved. After further thought, I'm now of the opinion that Homebrewing is indeed the better name. This has long been used throughout wikipedia, and is the choice used by the organizations in Homebrewing#External links (which represent US, UK and Canadian usage). I think it would be helpful to hear several editors give their thoughts on this though. -MrFizyx 02:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a homebrewer and patronize a homebrew store on occasion, and have always seen it written as "homebrewing".--Caliga10 02:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Well that does not reflect either my printed OED or my search which deliberately used the contraction to see what happened. Nonetheless, the references on the basis of your search would seem to make some allowance for this colloquial varient.
This creates a considerable problem with the consistency of all citations as all the major literature uses the form "Home Brewing" of "Home Brew". On a point of interest, I wandered into a take-away recently and was offered an attractively-priced chicken burgher (sic). I have yet to start cannibalising my fellow citizens in rural Hertfordshire, however. Shop signs and styles are a rule unto themselves.
Primarily, I would like to try and write the article in the usages common to the nation of my birth, as I gather I am permitted to do, without correction, by the style guidelines. However, I am also striving for consistency of usage within the article; which will not be possible if I correctly site the titles of the main literature. Finally, contractions are typically colloquial until they have been in the language for many years; winemaking for example made it all the way some time ago. I look forward to retitling the article on homo erectus to hairy ancient dude with relish. I feel that colloquial references from the Wayne's World Dictionary are now such common parlance that my arbitrary decision to distract the author from his main task is wholly justifiable.
DavidP02 11:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I believe you'll find in both the Manual of Style and in various ArbCom rulings that the Wikipedia preference is leave articles with the title under which they were created, if they are titled with a name that is particular to the US or to the UK. The ArbCom has historically frowned upon people coming in to an article written by an American and changing everything to British spellings and usages, and also vice versa. At least one editor has been permanently banned from Wikipedia for his inability to leave British spellings alone. (He made a point of changing every British spelling he found into its equivalent American spelling.)
So, since the article was created at "Homebrewing," and since that's the common term in the US (American Homebrewing Association, The Complete Joy of Homebrewing, etc), then clearly it should remain at "Homebrewing".
All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction
13:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
...which still completely fails to address my citation issue. Oh and by the way...
http://www.amazon.com/New-Complete-Joy-Home-Brewing/dp/0380763664 ...to reinforce my point, the book simply is not called anything to do with "homebrewing". Nonetheless we all seem keen to pursue our own argument rather than put together a framework which will help me get this written.
I am not, to quote the reaction so far, "vandalising" anything or going 'round correcting American English spellings to English. What I am trying to do is make a sober attempt to re-write an article which whilst it has the interest of so many is; US-centred, often, though unintentionally, inaccurate, fails to make any references, makes wholly biased assertions about the craft and generally annoys the living daylights out of me.
So in the word one Ronnie Corbett. 'It's goodbye from me...'
I plan to leave the rest of this to you fabled i-dotters and t-crossers. I am used to working with the house style of various publications. I have no desire to waste my time with one that is managed by the self-appointed committee that designed the lemming.
We will somehow struggle on in your absence. It will be difficult, certainly, but we will manage. Ξxtreme Unction 17:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It is pretty common for citations to have variation in spelling. This is not considered a problem. I think you are looking for Americentric tendencies where there are none. Obviously the "legal" section here needs information about homebrewing in other countries, but I the difference between "homebrewing" and "home brewing" is so small as to be irrelevant. Even the Craft Brewing Association web page uses "homebrewing", right alongside "home brewing". You may want to consider obtaining a newer copy of the OED (or seeking out the unabridged edition); the entry I'm reading right now lists "home-brewing" and "homebrewing", but actually does not list "home brewing" at all. —ptk✰fgs 17:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact that it is a miniscule point is well made; thank you. Nonetheless, it seems important enough for a series of people who regard themselves as guardians of this encyclopedia have jumped in to edit back this minor issue to the point of changing book titles to make them inaccurate. However, whilst it would appear that there a number of experienced craft brewers here, most sections do take a rather narrow view of a very broad subject. I have already edited out the American only history and tried to stop the General information reflecting only the process of extract beer brewing and the time involved.
I regret my loss of temper, as I have been trying to join in the editing debate with a little bit of humour. However, there seems to have been little humour in return, just playing the rules hard to make sure one particular point of view gets across even on the minutest matters. I really don't care whether you agree with my opinions or not wikipedians, but a good editor lets the writer get into the cut and thrust of the article; then he is savage with his pen. I have to say, I am surprised anything gets written here.
Nevertheless, despite Extreme's determination to soldier on without me, I'm going to give this one last go. Then, frankly please do with it what you will. Could I please appeal for a couple of days to try and get some sensible revisions down. Then if you don't agree, revert the whole thing for all I care.
DavidP02 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back to it

[edit] Editing Decisions

First of all, I would like some comment on an editing decision. Links to non-national associations are begining to appear again. Extreme Unction, or do you prefer Unc? seems to have worked to a rule of one recognised national association per country only. My proposal is to stick to this; maybe with the addition of one or two other national and supra-national references.

I am proposing to remove the link to the New York Homebrewers Guild. Comments???

DavidP02 19:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Some editors may keep adding them, but those of us following the discussion can keep removing them. -MrFizyx 19:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for supporting the edit. I have changed the structure slightly to reflect more precisely the intent of the section. It may even help... DavidP02 19:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, I am a bit dubious about the See Also section. Why not support the wikibook up front of the document? The rest of the references are almost certain to come up in the text.

Works for me. I usually see wikibook links in the external links section, though. —ptk✰fgs 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tables & Pictures

I'm noticing that the article is becoming one long block of text. I've moved tables to my sandbox for further work, please feel free to take a look and thanks to ptk for the heads up.

I'm currently gathering pictures from various contacts for inclusion, but any suggestions welcome.

DavidP02 22:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've inserted a minimum equipment table. It certainly deserves a good debate! DavidP02 00:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The whole brewing thing

Back in the original re-wrtie proposal, I pointed out the need to consider different end beverages as the reader's objective. I'm cool with just doing beer as writing three break-out articles is a major undertaking. I also remember Extreme had a language objection to using homebrewing to cover all the main branches of the craft.

So the options are:-

  • Write the thing with the beer process as an example process; or
  • Cover all processes and write break out article on beer, cider and wine (leaving options for mead and others later).

Any thoughts???

At least around here, beer is by far the most popular thing folks brew at home, so I don't think it's a problem if the article focuses mainly on homebrewing of beer. Until we have a lot of info on mead, wine, etc., there's no real reason to break those out into separate articles, as they'll just be stubs. Feeding starch and sugar to yeast to turn it into an alcoholic beverage, at home, is clearly the topic of this article. A paragraph or two on cider, mead, etc. is entirely appropriate here in my view. This is an article that is primarily written for readers who don't brew at home and want to read about it, so excluding things that aren't beer just because of specialist usage of the word would be a mistake. —ptk✰fgs 22:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I'll start with the way you suggest and see how things come out. DavidP02 11:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I've begun to break the methods up logically. I felt it particularly imprtant to pay a little more attention to kits as so many people are disappoint with the results they get from kits that need added sugar. DavidP02 12:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind, and I say this only as a general observation rather than a specific critique of the article as it currently stands (point of fact, I have not yet read the article as it currently stands): Articles should not be how-to guides. If the article becomes a step-by-step guide on how to brew beer (or mead or what-have-you) at home, it moves outside the scope of what a Wikipedia article should cover.

All the best,
Ξxtreme Unction
02:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good point Unc. I've tried to focus mostly on getting all the main terminology in place, but that has included some description of how things are done. Basically, I'm trying to put someone in a situation where, when talking to an experienced home brewer, they would understand all the principles and the jargon he or she might discuss. I would appreciate your thoughts on the work so far. 82.18.18.215 14:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry EU that was me not signed in... DavidP02 22:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing development

Added Liquors, boiling, extract, partial and started separating out the end of the existing process text. Still hunting for some really full on photos and need to put in a bucket of referrences - many of which I do have... DavidP02 23:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Some references and pics and some work on full mashes tonight. Note to self, getting a bit strangled - tighten up prose... DavidP02 00:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture deletion

I added two pictures last night with the full written permission of the copyright owner and somebody has simply deleted them. Can anybody explain why they have been delted, when I have obtained permission for them to be used?

I could do with some help on this issue. I really don't want to get into tit for tat reversions when I am labelling the permissions wrongly on the uploads or something. I think I have them right and I'm surprised the pictures have been deleted. I have full written permission to release them to the public domain... I don't want to get hung up on this but would like to reference and add pictures to what I have done so far before moving on to the latter parts of the article DavidP02 22:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brewing culture

My take on this section is that it covers alot of things that are basically just schools of brewing. Fair comment would include an analysis of whiuch schools dominate in which territories, but real homebrew cultured is more based around brewing circles, rig-heads, the hop-heads already mentioned, brewing competitions, online forums and general pub culture. I've convered most of the technical aspects although the fermentation and packging elements need a bit of a re-wrtie and rebalancing. I'd really aprreciate some thoughts and imput before proceeding with the final sections of the revamp. DavidP02 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement "this having been said the vast majority of beer consumed both sides of the Atlantic is keg beer" is false; for example, Coors Brewing Company, the largest single-site brewery in North America, kegs only 10% of its beer, with 70% going into cans, and the rest is bottled (Source: Coors brewery tour, Golden, CO). Since the amount of commercial keg beer consumed anywhere isn't relevant to homebrewing, and no sources have been cited to show the percentage of homebrewed beer that is kegged, I'm going to remove it unless there's a compelling reason not to do so. Bri2k1 18:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the argumnet between pressure kegged as against cask beer which uses natural maturation to add sparkle to the beer, but your point is well made. I've no objection to your changes although again homebrew culture is based arounf alot more than brewing methods... ;) DavidP02 21:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal aspects

This is a bit tougher. By far the most complex homebrew environment in legal terms is the US. The legal situations in the UK and Aus can be covered in a short paragraph each at most. I feel a state by state table is just too much. there are a number of decent sites which provide this already. Comments again would be helpful. DavidP02 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Mash / Sparge from the culture section

I know this has been reverted. Can all interested editors see how it has been covered as part of the process section and discuss? I guess it is an aspect of brew culture but it's basically a brewing method and I have already covered it. DavidP02 22:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] long article

This article is getting long. I recommend that the section "The process" be split off to its own article. — goethean ॐ 23:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay I agree - That was the original plan, but on advice from other editors went back to covering beer as a main brewing topic. Can I ssuggest I finish the article which is getting close then we work on a plitout ot=r do you think this is a priority now. I'm happy to go with either. :D DavidP02 23:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Spltting the article is not really a priority. — goethean ॐ 15:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay so how do we create a Category: called Homebrewing and then attach a series of articles to it? DavidP02 22:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
there is one already, and this article's already in it. — goethean ॐ 22:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
What he said. For future reference, you can create a category using the same method as you would to create any other article; the only difference is that the article title begins with "Category:", e.g. Category:Whatever. To add articles to the new category, you have to edit each of the articles and add [[Category:Whatever]] to them. --Mwalimu59 23:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay on the long article thing, I created a facsimile called homebrewing beer with a small nav section to get back to this article... Is this a way forward? If so I'll cut the process bit down to generic stuff DavidP02 23:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Extract brewing

The article seems to state that in order to use additional malt or adjunct grains a partial mashing process is required; in my experience this isn't always so, at least in the US brewing scene. Working in a (large) homebrew supply store I'd like to point out that a great many brewers utilize extra grains without a proper partial mash, instead steeping the grains for varying amounts of time (depends on the recipe and the brewer) even though malts used in this manner may contribute no fermentables due to lack of enzymes or improper temperature, they are effective in adding color, body (mostly in the form of dextrines, AFAIK) and flavor to an extract brew. MalkavianX 05:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This may be a national difference in practice. Typically only dead malts are used in the UK to add colour. 80.169.25.228 16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I added HomeBrewTalk because TastyBrew is listed but HBT is much larger with much more information including a Mediawiki based Wiki that is quite large and growing very fast!

[edit] Merger with Homebrewing beer

I suggest merging this article with Homebrewing beer. They mostly duplicate each other. Thetrick 19:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they duplicate each other to a certain extent and need sorting out. I think the original intention was to move the "process" section from this article to Homebrewing beer. I've add back the merge tag to indicate that something needs to be done, but it may not actually result in a full merge, rather a rationalisation of what text needs to be in each article instead of the current duplication. -- MightyWarrior 11:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
That would be reasonable. If that is done, the remaining article should be made less beer-centric. (I personally think that Homebrewing implicitly means Homebrewing beer and that if this article is to be a overview of the generic process for wine, beer, cider, mead, etc., it should be moved to Home alcohol production or something similar. But that's a discussion best left for another day....) Thetrick 15:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
As someone who homebrews beer I disagree, and think that homebrewing means cider and everything else, even spirits to an extent (everything leading up to the distilling). I think there should be a hombrewing article that deals with all the different alcohols that can be made and a homebrewing beer article that links from that that deals exclusively with beer homebrewing. (Justinboden86 14:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

Since I agree homebrewing covers much more than beer, and it has been a while since the merge was proposed with no headway made, I'm going to remove the merge tags. BigNate37(T) 21:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plastic Bottle reuse myth

This line needs to be removed: "For storage and dispensing some brewers use plastic; while PET plastic is popular, it should be considered that plastic has a limited shelf life and that, during degradation of polymers, monomers [known to be carcinogenic] are released." This is merely an urban legend and is mentioned at Snopes.com under toxins. Trumpy 03:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)