If I'm not mistaken this was actually a follow up exbeeremnt to another similar exbeerement - not to mention he cites at least one article on the subject. It seems like there's enough evidence to conclude that pure oxygen does help, but it also seems like the difference is almost indistinguishable, (at least in this exbeerement it was statistically indistinguishable). Like I said, I'll probably start using pure O2 eventually just because. I can guarantee I'm not going to spend $210 to do it though - but to each his own.
I'm not one to bash the Brulosophy approach haphazardly because, well, at least they're trying to determine where things matter and where they don't matter. And the methods used are, IMO, really pretty good.
But--still there are issues. One of the biggest ones is that the panels that do the tasting are representative of....what? The general beer-drinking community? Judges? Only panels of beer drinkers in that location? Are there regional trends in taste? I don't know what those panels represent, so I take this all with a grain of salt.
So the fact that in this panel, a less-than-statistically-significant number of members were able to pick the odd one out, might mean simply that it's a weird panel. It's not a random sample.
Further, it's possible that whatever flavor differences that result are masked by other elements. I intensely dislike the flavor of Belgians; not sure that any difference in oxygenation would get past that for me.
Or what if it doesn't matter much for small beers but it matters more for big beers? Or are some types of yeast more...appreciative of the oxygen than others, and thus perform better?
**************
For me, the best Brulosophy exbeeriments are those which address process; the least informative are those that address ingredients.
My favorite one, so much so that I use it in my classes on research methodology, compared 2-row barley to Maris Otter. The results *were* statistically significant, but when asked to pick which they preferred, the panelists were split exactly 50-50 as to their preference.
I ask my students, "What actionable intelligence do you get from this result?" The answer is, really, that there is none. If I were a commercial brewer and there was a big difference in preference, it might tell me which type of brew my customers would prefer, if I could trust that the panel was representative of my customers.
But in this case, it tells me that people like what they like, and it tells me nothing about how I should consider changing my own brewing. BTW, I'm a Maris Otter fan.
**************
But the process exbeeriments are, IMO, more helpful. I read on brulosophy about dumping all the trub into the fermenter instead of straining it out. I decided to decide for myself, and that's what I do--it all goes in. None of this whirlpool stuff for me.
I can't tell that it makes any difference at all to include or not include the trub, and thus I avoid a somewhat messy and more time-consuming element of the process. It might be different for you.
The lesson I took from this is I have to try it and judge for myself.
**************
All that said, I think I've made good beer w/o oxygenating. And yet, the books say to do it, the Yeast book by Chris White and Jamil Zainasheff says that just shaking or aggressively mixing with air does not add enough for optimal yeast health and vitality.
But I'm after outstanding beer, so I oxygenate. I recently taught a friend how to brew, and after about 5 batches, he's made some really very nice beer. He doesn't oxygenate. He did have one beer that was less than what he normally can do; he forgot to shake the fermenter. But given his other results, in the recipes and with the processes he uses, it's not a make-or-break process element.
In the end, you have to please yourself; I agree with you, spending $210 for a system to add oxygen seems pretty pricey to me. I use the small bottle system, and I'm on my second bottle; probably about 12 batches per bottle.
**********
Might as well make this longer.
One of my mantras as I've followed the path of learning to brew is to try to do something better every time. Continuous quality improvement, IOW. Adding oxygen to the wort was one of those efforts.
And it's occurred to me that there may be a cumulative effect to best practices, such that by themselves, any particular process element might not produce hugely discernable results, but taken together, the best practices might, additively, produce a significantly better result. At least for now, I'm operating under that thesis.
The fact that you're engaged here suggests to me that you're doing similar things, i.e., trying to continually get better. It's not a bad approach. Brew on!
