applescrap
Be the ball!
What is it all about? Can you please elaborate.
Do "professional" brewers consider brulosophy to be a load of bs?
- Thread starter BrewVerymore
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
- Status
What is it all about? Can you please elaborate.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64,951
- Reaction score
- 16,516
I'm gonna be in Minneapolis next weekend. I know one place I won't be going and spending money...
It's really a shame that I find German-style lagers one of the least interesting beer styles. How can I boycott something I'd never buy in the first place?
Last edited by a moderator:
Confuses me. If there is no critiquing of others' opinions, views, information--then what do we have here? Seems like it would be nothing but a bunch of people talking past each other. And if that's the case, then I don't think we'd ever refine anything. Maybe that's not what you're saying, and if so, I apologize.
*************
Yesterday I finished my own attempt at doing an experiment. Very difficult to do as I can't brew, with my system, two batches in parallel. I had to do them sequentially which is harder because ambient conditions change making temperature control more difficult.
But I did it. Very comfortable that I have produced batches that for all intents and purposes are...if not identical, then very comparable. Same OG. pH within .03, but that could even be due to the variable of interest, i.e., Brewtan-B.
I know already how I'm going to test this, and I WILL do so addressing the measurement and tasting problems inherent in these other experiments. Further, I plan to do a test when fresh, then with bottles put away and intended to be tested at 3- and 6-months.
But in the end, I will welcome reasoned critiques of what I do. I always learn something when others critique; I never do when they accept. And I will not ask people to accept it or ignore it, as that will be akin to either "accept authority" or putting one's fingers in one's ears and saying "La la la la...."
I'm a scientist. This is what scientists do--they don't look for reasons why they're right, they look for reasons why they might be wrong. Interestingly, you can see this scientific bent in the comments of a few others in this thread.
You may have my comments confused with someone else's, Denny. But in the end, we're all about making better, tastier, longer-shelf-life beer, it seems to me.
And yes, it is homebrewing, but never have I been satisfied for doing things in a mediocre way. So when I critique what others are doing or found, it's done with the intent of trying to find out the truth. I don't want just drinkable beer. I don't want good beer. I want exceptional beer, and beer others agree is exactly that.
That doesn't mean everyone has to have my goals. And FWIW, I have two books you're an author on. Much as I judge my beers in part by whether people have a second one, I bought a second book by you. Must have found something of value in the first one.
Will you be posting your results on this forum? If so, where?
Oh, absolutely. Not sure where. A couple preliminary observations:
The pH of the BtB batch was a bit lower (5.28; control batch was 5.31). Same grain bill from the same lots of grain, measured to a tenth of an ounce. Could have been measurement error I suppose, or maybe BtB, given the tannic acid in it, reduces pH? I don't know enough about chemistry to weigh in on that. There was exactly 1 gram of BtB in the strike water--measured with a reloading scale accurate to +/- 1/10 of a grain. A "grain" is 1/7000 of a pound.
Check weights. Had 1.34 grams added to the wort at 16 minutes. All my additions were measured with that scale, so I'm comfortable that the water treatment was equal.I never had a batch take off as fast as the BtB batch did. Pitched at, IIRC, 4pm, had active bubbling 5 1/2 hours later. Could see bubbles coming to the surface, and the beginning of a krausen forming. The control batch was making similar progress about an hour later. Not unusual for me to see a 12-hour lag before evidence of active fermentation.
And FWIW: this is my third time using BtB. I have a Cal Common done with, and a later one done without. Not a very good scientific test, it was the best I could do at the time. Anxious to see if the BtB batch retains flavor better than the one without. And since the BtB batch was done 21 days earlier, staling or oxidation would appear there first. I also did one of my Darth Lager with BtB. Morrey brewed that recipe using BtB, said the flavors popped--but that's preliminary before carbing. When he said that, I knew I needed to brew it again using BtB. That's still in the fermenter, about ready to start reducing temp on it. Probably 2 weeks away from that.
But all I'll be able to do is compare batches brewed at discontinuous times. I may draw some conclusions based on my palate and knowing what i know about how I brew, but I can't present it in any way to readers here that will be convincing. At least, I wouldn't be. But I'll know enough, I think, to decide if I want to keep fooling with it.
Just to whet your appetite:
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64,951
- Reaction score
- 16,516
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,719
- Reaction score
- 759
I ordered from https://www.ibrew.com.au/products/brewtan-b in Australia. I think it was about $15 including shipping to the US.
I ordered on September 21st and they sent me tracking information but the two links for tracking the package said it hadn't been scanned or that it wasn't trackable. I'd seen other US brewers report they'd received it from ibrew so I took a chance.
Brewcraft USA, a major homebrew wholesaler, has just started carrying Brewtan B. Your LHBS can order it from them.
Your results are invalid!
As I do this it's not difficult to realize how hard is is to do these things, and if Marshall and his cohorts are truly hitting their numbers, it's impressive. I calibrated my pH meter both times, but how do we know it's right?
Every and any time the two batches are different, that could be a reason for how the results turn out. I measured water additions with a very precise scale, but I didn't nail the mash temps--BtB was about 7/10 of a degree higher. Is that enough to make a difference? I doubt it, but who am I to say? It's really hard to dial in an exact temp on my system as i use BIAB. The Hellfire burner retains a lot of heat when turned off, continues to add heat. I have to account for that. Then there's the temperature of the grain (both stored in the same place). Then how much before doughing-in I crushed it (about 45 minutes both times).
Same with fermentation temps. I don't have a free ferm chamber so both are in the same one. On the face of it that's good, but I can only control temps with one Inkbird. They're both very close in temp--but is .4 degrees Fahrenheit enough to matter? Again I doubt it, but there is is.
<sigh> Science is hard. And it's really hard when you can't do it under completely controlled conditions.
As I do this it's not difficult to realize how hard is is to do these things, and if Marshall and his cohorts are truly hitting their numbers, it's impressive. I calibrated my pH meter both times, but how do we know it's right?
Every and any time the two batches are different, that could be a reason for how the results turn out. I measured water additions with a very precise scale, but I didn't nail the mash temps--BtB was about 7/10 of a degree higher. Is that enough to make a difference? I doubt it, but who am I to say?
No, 7/10 of a degree won't matter. 14 whole degrees don't matter. This proves it:
http://brulosophy.com/2015/10/12/the-mash-high-vs-low-temperature-exbeeriment-results/
[emoji57]
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64,951
- Reaction score
- 16,516
That's why I find it rather interesting that most of Marshall's results don't achieve significance at the .05 level.
With how hard it is to make equal batches sans the purposeful change in one variable, one would assume that all the slight differences would cumulatively result in easily being able to pick the different beer in a triangle test.
Marshall has repeatedly shown that many of those minor changes (pH, temp, fermentation temp, water chemistry, etc.) just don't matter that much.
If one choses not to believe his results, great.....but unless they are brining additional data to corroborate their belief, it's just that, a belief.
Pastors believe, scientists think.
With how hard it is to make equal batches sans the purposeful change in one variable, one would assume that all the slight differences would cumulatively result in easily being able to pick the different beer in a triangle test.
Marshall has repeatedly shown that many of those minor changes (pH, temp, fermentation temp, water chemistry, etc.) just don't matter that much.
If one choses not to believe his results, great.....but unless they are brining additional data to corroborate their belief, it's just that, a belief.
Pastors believe, scientists think.
Unless they cancel each other out. But I tend toward how you're interpreting it, such differences would seem to increase the likelihood of detection of....something.
Marshall has repeatedly shown that many of those minor changes (pH, temp, fermentation temp, water chemistry, etc.) just don't matter that much.
If one choses not to believe his results, great.....but unless they are brining additional data to corroborate their belief, it's just that, a belief.
Pastors believe, scientists think.
I'm in a theoretical/hypothetical mode right now that suggests brewing great beer doesn't come from a single change, but from the cumulative effect doing a number of best practices.
I have had three reactions to Marshall's findings and I'm looking at how to resolve them.
One is to take them at face value, the results say it doesn't matter much if at all what we do. That's possible. Maybe beer brewing is an extremely forgiving and robust process, and certain details don't matter enough to be perceived.
The second is that the panels of tasters may be doing something to limit their ability to perceive such differences, i.e., drinking or eating things beforehand that limit their abilities. This is much of what I've contributed to this thread.
The third is potentially the most interesting. What if Marshall's (and cohorts') results ARE true, that the panel tastings are accurate and legit, and that the lack of differences usually detected is how it is.
Does that mean nothing matters? Not necessarily....there's another possibility at least. That is, that there's a cumulative effect of best practices on final product. Imagine for the sake of illustration that 1.0 is the threshold of perceptibility. Imagine any one change one might make produces a .8 result (below perceptibility, in other words). A single change in an experiment might never rise to perceptibility but the cumulative effect of many small changes might. For instance, four different changes, examined in isolation, produce no discernable difference. But taken together, .8 + .7 + .5 + .8 add up to 3.0, which would cause us to notice a difference.
I know the short-and-shoddy experiment they've tried to do attempted to assess this in part, and IIRC they do tend to show an effect though not a great one. Not sure again if the panel's abilities to taste are compromised, but there's a bit of a suggestion there that maybe there is a cumulative effect. But it's a single time, and only that--which to my mind means worth doing more research on.
The approach I've bee using as a homebrewer for a while now is simply the idea that best practices are exactly those, and the cumulative effect of my brewing with best practices will result in better beer. So even though some results suggest single changes don't have much effect, a cumulative effect might be of greater importance.
My beers have gotten better and better as I've done that, and I don't think that's a coincidence.
So--which of the three above is correct? Or are all three correct in their own way? And is there a fourth I haven't listed?
<sigh> Science is hard. But it's fun.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 64,951
- Reaction score
- 16,516
And beer is fun, too!
Unfortunately, based on some responses in this thread, not everyone feels that way...
MaryB
Well-Known Member
This entire thread illustrates what's wrong in our world today... Everyone thinks they are right, thinks their opinion is valid, and can find enough people on the internet to agree with them to feel validated.
Isn't it enough to say "we don't know the answer yet, so let's reserve judgement until there's more data" on some questions?
Also, I would highly recommend to every homebrewer that they read a pro brewing textbook or two. Most of the organic chemistry was over my head, but everything else made me realize that homebrewers are going in circles about stuff that has been time tested and lab proven to work or not work.
There's no sense in "picking a side" or even really forming an opinion on this stuff.. You have 3 choices.
Something is either true, false, or not yet known and needs more data.
Almost everything that people get worked up about is in the latter 2 categories because of an opinion that they hold and feel like any criticism of that opinion is a personal attack.
We're all here to learn, not choose sides and attack each other. Accept the truth, have the grace to change your mind if something is proven false, and reserve final judgement until the results are in.
Isn't it enough to say "we don't know the answer yet, so let's reserve judgement until there's more data" on some questions?
Also, I would highly recommend to every homebrewer that they read a pro brewing textbook or two. Most of the organic chemistry was over my head, but everything else made me realize that homebrewers are going in circles about stuff that has been time tested and lab proven to work or not work.
There's no sense in "picking a side" or even really forming an opinion on this stuff.. You have 3 choices.
Something is either true, false, or not yet known and needs more data.
Almost everything that people get worked up about is in the latter 2 categories because of an opinion that they hold and feel like any criticism of that opinion is a personal attack.
We're all here to learn, not choose sides and attack each other. Accept the truth, have the grace to change your mind if something is proven false, and reserve final judgement until the results are in.
wow, I missed a lot over the weekend. Lively discussion. I feel left out, no one knows who I am, just a random homebrewer, with enough experience to know I don't know much. I love making and drinking beer, and like to have others enjoy my beer, or critique it to help me make better beer next time. Of course that would require me to take good notes in the first place and that only happens some of the time. Relax and have a homebrew 
This is some of the best advise I have heard in regards to brewing. "rockin"
This is some of the best advise I have heard in regards to brewing. "rockin"
Bilsch
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2015
- Messages
- 1,677
- Reaction score
- 1,517
One may not like their products but I don't think we can deny they are technically highly skilled brewers with vast amounts of knowledge in the art.
Yes, it takes a lot of skill to make Miller Lite taste exactly the same every batch, I say that without sarcasm.
And yet, almost anyone that can follow basic instructions can make (in my opinion, anyway) far superior beer.
My apologies to any Miller Lite fans out there.
Miller sucks. Coors is worse. I like Bud. Now that takes skill.
But I'm sure they don't care about homebrewers. They've told us as much in all their ads this year. Which, ironically, kind of means that maybe they really DO care.......
But I'm sure they don't care about homebrewers. They've told us as much in all their ads this year. Which, ironically, kind of means that maybe they really DO care.......
Murphys_Law
Well-Known Member
It's (sort of) already been done:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/foodfocus/ct-macro-beer-tasting-food-0712-20170706-story.html
And this is relevant because it's professional brewers and their opinions being considered...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/foodfocus/ct-macro-beer-tasting-food-0712-20170706-story.html
And this is relevant because it's professional brewers and their opinions being considered...
Some of them, yes.
First, let me say that I mostly believe what TheMadKing is saying here, but there is enough contrast in these two paragraphs that I think it deserves additional comment.
Most of what we know as homebrewers has filtered down from years of professional experience and scientific study into the fairly complex process of brewing. It would be folly to ignore what the pro's have "time tested and lab proven", however, some of the knowledge acquired over the years by the pro's may not always apply at the homebrew volume.
I know I'm not saying anything new here, but I think the question asked by the OP may be irrelevant. I think it makes sense to test some of the maxims that we have adopted from the pro's. Do homebrewers need to boil 5 gallons just as long as the pro does to drive off DMS, for example?
"Let's reserve judgement until there's more data" seems like a good idea to me and, while the Brulosophy exBEERiments don't meet the scientific rigor that some of us believe necessary, we can glean something of value from them if only on an individual level (i.e. does it matter to ME?).
The W34/70 fermentation temp experiment was particularly interesting to me. As bwarbiany pointed out, conventional wisdom tells us that the batch brewed at the higher temperature should be more estery than the cold-brewed batch, but it apparently wasn't perceived by the tasters. Unlike the homebrewer, the pro's would probably test for esters in a lab. We must rely on our taste-buds to tell us. Maybe W34/70 is a strain of yeast that just doesn't act like other lager yeasts that we're used to.
More data is needed in order to answer some of these questions, but I don't think that rigorous scientific control is necessarily required if the final result passes our personal taste test. Commercial brewers have much more at stake than a 5 gallon batch.
Thanks for the input Minky! I would also like to add that I think Marshall's experiments are incredibly valuable as a place to start. I think he's asking the right questions, and providing a springboard for future brewing scientists who want to put his questions through more rigorous testing. I also agree that not everything that works at the pro scale works at the homebrew scale.
I don't agree that "if it passes our taste test it's good enough" though. I think if a yeast strain has been shown to release esters in a lab and we KNOW that that is the case, then why bother trying to cut corners with it? Yes maybe it will pass some taste tests but not others. why not make every situation as black and white as possible. If we know something is true, or false, we can move on to the next question and incorporate those facts in to "best practices".
The last time "best practices" were ignored, and then reinvented it was called the dark age and renaissance. Ignoring facts in favor of sensory based opinions is a dangerous precedent.
That seems a bit ominous considering we're talking about making beer at home.
Agreed, but I think this is symptom that has ramifications in much wider issues, climate change, vaccines, food production, government, etc .. not trying to derail the thread, just trying to turn some of the hostile comments into a moment for self-reflection.
Questioning establish facts and experts in favor of anecdotal knowledge or the crowd's consensus isn't a good general practice. Sure it can lead to the odd innovation, but for the most part it just leads to a backslide of knowledge and it's an extremely trendy thing to do right now.
Asking questions is great, but there's no sense in re-inventing the wheel without looking to see if the question has already been answered before, does that make sense?
skraeling
Scientist Extraordinaire
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2013
- Messages
- 721
- Reaction score
- 285
homebrew scale vs commercial scale is different. it flat out is. We can get away with things on a homebrew scale that when scaled up do make a difference.
They are testing things that we will encounter. So I consider it viable.
<- not a pro brewer of beer, but I did do industrial fermentation of ecoli for a hot minute + almost a decade of actual benchwork.
They are testing things that we will encounter. So I consider it viable.
<- not a pro brewer of beer, but I did do industrial fermentation of ecoli for a hot minute + almost a decade of actual benchwork.
I'm curious about why they don't make entering the beers into competitions a more regular part of the experiment. After considerable struggle I understand why it is not permitted to tip off the triangle taste panels or practical to recruit taste panels trained for specific beer types. It seems many of the concerns about the heretical practice of brewing lagers at warm temperatures could be settled by entering these beers into competitions and seeing if judged against a whole table of lagers by judges thinking about typical lager flaws that they might stand out as estery. Of course it will be interesting when beers the tasting panels could not tell apart routinely get widely different scores but it seems a viable tool to consider.
I think you're discounting people's ability to decide what's important and what's not. I readily look to "real" science on the issues you list. However, for a hobby that has no bearing on anything other than my enjoyment of the hobby, my criteria are much different. And through my 20 years of experimenting I've found what I experience differs from the "professional" brewing science. Am I to believe what I read or the evidence of my eyes and experience?
I think there are 2 flaws to this idea...first, the idea that BJCP judges are infallible. Anyone who has ever entered or judged a comp knows that's not true. Second, you assume that there are no BJCP judges on the taste panels. My panels, at least, have consisted of experienced homebrewers, BJCP judges (including Master and GM), and commercial brewers. Don't make assumptions about the tasters.
Yes I absolutely am discounting that ability. People think in patterns, not 100% rationally all the time. On your commute home today, look and see how many people are texting while driving. They are not rationally judging what's important and what's not, and that pattern of thinking is what I'm talking about.
People rely on patterns and habits over rational thought far more often than any of us would like to admit. So it's better to form good patterns, hobby or not.
If your eyes and experience tell you something different than established fact then your observations are flawed or your interpretations are, or your conditions are different. What works on the pro scales works on the homebrew scale 90% of the time with the few exceptions of mechanical processes such as cooling.
I think I've been insulted!
Obviously I've had better experiences with people than you have.
I think I've been insulted!
Lol no insult intended unless it was to myself as well! I think that must be so!
It is also foolish to blindly trust in science. I can't even count the number of times a study decided something was conclusively true, only to be proven false by a later study. I can't remember what the topic was, but a couple weeks ago I saw 8 studies, all on the same thing, and they were evenly split on whether something was true or false. For something like homebrewing, I will consider they study or the Brulosophy findings but my taste buds get the final word.
I would agree with what you're saying here if we were preparing fugu, the puffer fish delicacy that can kill if prepared improperly!
Seriously though, we're discussing a substance - beer - that is all about sensory experience, and our discussion gets down to the very essence of why we brew at home. When we brew for competition, we are careful to make sure that our beer meets the style guidelines. Otherwise, we are free to ignore strict style guidelines to brew what we like. If I use a "lager" yeast and ferment at a higher temperature and it produces a beer that satisfies me and tastes to me like a lager, I don't care if it's really a lager or what anyone else calls it.
When I brew, my "sensory-based opinion" is ALL that matters.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
From cider and mead to beer aka the beginners NEIPA- Latest: Takeshi_pilis
-
-
-
-
-
-
