Brulosophy expert can't tell a Blonde Ale made with straight RO from RO plus minerals

[Silver_Is_Money]

Fair enough, but what if mineral analysis of the finished beers showed similar ion concentrations? If that were the case, I imagine the title of this thread would be worded differently.

That is indeed a realistic possibility.

 

[Sammy86]

Sure, people can use critical thinking skills but if they keep reading that Bru is a good source of info, why would they believe any different? You obviously like their info, and that is fine for you. I (as well as a lot of others) feel they are giving bad misdirected information on cutting corners which can hurt the hobby. And as you said, I'm not changing your mind and you're not changing mine.

Could you explain how it's going to hurt the hobby?

 

[Gnomebrewer]

This is, at least as I see it, the line in the sand.

There seems to be a belief in a mythical line in the sand where decent/good beer becomes great beer when go go from applying “good enough”/“simple” methods to “better”/“more complicated” methods.

Seems like total hogwash to me. Anyone can make world class beer using even the most basic equipment. It’s all down to how you prioritize methods and practices.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but I think we're on the same page. I don't think there's a 'line in the sand' but it's easy to make 'good' beer, and incrementally harder to make that beer better, or 'great' (which are only arbitrary terms anyway). From what I've seen on brulosophy, they use good sanitation, fresh yeast starters, fresh ingredients, chill to at or below ferment temp, control ferment temperature and take basic steps to limit O2 exposure on the cold side. That's a pretty solid starting point for a homebrewer, and for many there's no need to go further than that. IMO, an improvement would be closed transfers and/or spunding on the cold side, but few new brewers would do that. Others would recommend full low oxygen processes, but again probably not for a new brewer. Others again might swear by decoctions. None of it needs fancy equipment, but the added processes are probably too much for those new to the hobby.

This whole thing is turning into some sort of a culture war for no reason.

It sure is! Everyone needs to RDWHAHB. Unfortunately for me I've got two weeks of a 'dry' to go........(needed to drop a few kilograms).

 

[madscientist451]

I'm not only convinced of this but two BJCP judges who had my warm fermented German Pils gave a 40 and 38 are as well! Don't knock it until you try it!

OMG! That's not the way "Science" works!

 

[VikeMan]

Here's something interesting about the experiment that kicked off this discussion. The pH for each batch was measured:

5.68 (presumably for straight RO, based on the L-R order presented)
5.66 (presumable for the dosed batch, based on the order presented)

So here's the interesting thing. With good RO water, I'd expect a pH of about 5.67 (squarely between the two measurements taken, which really could be taken to be the same, given the precision of the meter).

With water dosed to the levels specified in the experiment, I'd expect a pH anywhere from 5.51 to 5.59, depending on the mash thickness (5.51 and 5.59 correspond to mash thicknesses of 2.0 qts/lb and 1.0 qts/lb, respectively).

There should have been a much bigger difference in mash pH between the two batches. Why wasn't there? A few possibilities come to mind.
- the salts were inadvertently not added
- the salts were not dissolved
- pH measurement error (temperature related perhaps)

If this was a matter of the salts not being added, you'd obviously expect exactly the results obtained, i.e. 3 or 4 (out of 10) of the triangle tests guessing correctly due to random chance.

<Predicted pH values above are based on MpH as implemented in BrewCipher. Other models might give slightly different predictions, but the basic phenomenon would be the same... the two pH measurements should have been much further apart.>

 

[Vale71]

Do you really expect this guy to have ever calibrated his PH meter?

 

[Gnomebrewer]

Here's something interesting about the experiment that kicked off this discussion. The pH for each batch was measured:

5.68 (presumably for straight RO, based on the L-R order presented)
5.66 (presumable for the dosed batch, based on the order presented)

So here's the interesting thing. With good RO water, I'd expect a pH of about 5.67 (squarely between the two measurements taken, which really could be taken to be the same, given the precision of the meter).

With water dosed to the levels specified in the experiment, I'd expect a pH anywhere from 5.51 to 5.59, depending on the mash thickness (5.51 and 5.59 correspond to mash thicknesses of 2.0 qts/lb and 1.0 qts/lb, respectively).

There should have been a much bigger difference in mash pH between the two batches. Why wasn't there? A few possibilities come to mind.
- the salts were inadvertently not added
- the salts were not dissolved
- pH measurement error (temperature related perhaps)

If this was a matter of the salts not being added, you'd obviously expect exactly the results obtained, i.e. 3 or 4 (out of 10) of the triangle tests guessing correctly due to random chance.

<Predicted pH values above are based on MpH as implemented in BrewCipher. Other models might give slightly different predictions, but the basic phenomenon would be the same... the two pH measurements should have been much further apart.>

If the purpose of the experiment was to see if the salt additions affected flavour, salts should have been added directly to the boil kettle (not the mash). Alternatively, if salts were added to the mash, the non-adjusted batch should have had an acid addition to keep both batches in the same pH range. He didn't do this though, so it doesn't explain why pH's were effectively the same.

 

[VikeMan]

Do you really expect this guy to have ever calibrated his PH meter?

I suspect he did, given that the reading(s) matched what you'd expect from the mash with RO water. But even if he didn't, I'd still expect the two readings to be significantly different (both wrong, but different from each other).

 

[Vale71]

Not if the probe is shot.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

The lack of pH drop for the batch mashed with minerals was an immediate flag for me also. It certainly aroused my suspicion. And so did the picture where the two mash temperatures were being taken. In that shot the two "otherwise identical" batches seem to have about a 2 gallon differential in mash volume. The one on the left is well down in the kettle and obviously thick, whereas the one on the right is well more full.

 

[VikeMan]

Not if the probe is shot.

Possible. It would be quite a coincidence (to happen to match the expected RO mash pH).

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Another unexpected oddity is the color difference.

 

[Vale71]

The lack of pH drop for the batch mashed with minerals was an immediate flag for me also. It certainly aroused my suspicion. And so did the picture where the two mash temperatures were being taken. In that shot the two "otherwise identical" batches seem to have about a 2 gallon differential in mash volume. The one on the left is well down in the kettle and obviously thick, whereas the one on the right is well more full.

Hadn't noticed that. So they can't even get the mash volume right but expect us to see their comparative results as valid...
Different mash thickness would also cause PH variations making a direct comparison of measured values meaningless.

Incidentally I clicked on the two side-by-side pictures showing temperature and PH values and discovered one more source of income for Brülosophy.

 

[Kent88]

This thread is locked