No, just the opposite in fact. In many of their tests they eliminate those who can't make a determination. Part of a 'forced guess' test is that panelists are forced to specify which is the odd beer when they can't detect which it is otherwise. This is designed into the test and represents a deviation on the part of Brulosophy from accepted procedure.
To determine the statistical significance in a triangle test one observes that under the null hypothesis (the hypothesis that the beers are indistinguishable) every panelist is forced to guess so the probability of picking the odd beer is 1/3. That value is inserted into the binomial distribution in order to calculate the probability that, under the null hypothesis, n (the number of panelists who got it right) or more out of m (the number of panelists) would correctly guess the odd beer. If that probability is very low then it appears the null hypothesis is not true and we reject it in favor of the alternative hypothesis that the beers are in fact distinguishable.
From my beer recollection, I was drinking IPA's and meads before I took my two xBMTs.....one was a FWH experiment, the other was a fermentation temp one.
Does that help make your point?
In fairness, Marshall will readily admit that his goal isn't peer-reviewed literature level of science, but rather some interesting observations for the average homebrewer....especially those who take some older brewing mantra as gospel (like mashing at 152.4 compared to 155.3 will make a major difference).
Please understand--this wasn't an indictment of Marshall. Rather, there have been one or two individuals in this thread who have championed the idea that, apparently, those things don't matter. They do.
I actually think the experiments Marshall and his cohorts do are pretty well done. What I wish we had was a better indication of who the people are who are testing, but even more than that, a better way of controlling what people are eating and drinking prior to the testing. My gut tells me the lack of differences we see in many brulosophy experiments is related to this. BUT, it would be better if someone (like me, maybe) could do some experiments which are as well-controlled as the brulosophy ones are, and then put some effort into the measurement side.
I really want to do that. Maybe it doesn't matter, but either way, it's an issue that, IMO, is still outstanding. I'd have people show up to testing not having drunk any beer; I'd have water to cleanse palates, and I might even try to have tasters do successive tests to ensure they're able to discern the difference.
The brulosophy methodology has improved over time, and I'm hoping that this becomes the next area of improvement. If I could find a way to brew two comparable batches I'd try to do that, but I don't have the dual system I need. All I can do is brew sequentially, and maybe that would be enough.
**************
Morrey and I have been doing some initial testing of Brewtan-B. We think we see something there, but it might be wishful thinking. I'm dying to do two IPA batches, everything the same except BtB, and see what impact there is on initial flavor as well as long-term stability of flavor and aroma.
I've got two ferm chambers so I could start them separately, have starters that are staggered by four hours, and so on. I need to find someone local to help me do this and maintain fidelity to consistent brewing techniques. Or maybe I can just plot it out, but an assistant would help immensely.
I have someone in mind.
I'm using Denny's suggestion as to how to use Brewtan-B. It requires including it in the mash, so splitting the batch wouldn't work.
I also don't have the capacity to do a 10-gallon batch. I've got a 10-gallon Spike. Maybe I'll put a 15- or 20-gallon kettle on my Christmas list.
Sorry if this is a lame questions, but what is Brewtan-B?
How long are you aging it for? Long term to me sounds like years (14% barley wine or something like that).
How long are you aging it for? Long term to me sounds like years (14% barley wine or something like that).
