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

[goodolarchie]

What is the p value for that?

My point is I encourage everyone who reads into significant vs insignificant to forget about P values, just do an A-B test for themselves. If they are thinking about ridding yourself of a held technique, like fermenting lagers cool, at least split a batch and try them side by side.

If you're convinced warm lager fermentations turn out great (an oft-touted Brulosophism)... then the worst case scenario is you'll have two great batches of beer, one you can start drinking earlier while the other finishes.

Otherwise, at the end of the day you're outsourcing your brewing decisions to twenty palates of whom you've never met. The Brulosophy guys recommend trying it out for yourself too, I just put more emphasis on what is often a footnote.

 

[AzOr]

Wait, what were we talking about?

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

My point is I encourage everyone who reads into significant vs insignificant to forget about P values, just do an A-B test for themselves. If they are thinking about ridding yourself of a held technique, like fermenting lagers cool, at least split a batch and try them side by side.

If you're convinced warm lager fermentations turn out great (an oft-touted Brulosophism)... then the worst case scenario is you'll have two great batches of beer, one you can start drinking earlier while the other finishes.

Otherwise, at the end of the day you're outsourcing your brewing decisions to twenty palates of whom you've never met. The Brulosophy guys recommend trying it out for yourself too, I just put more emphasis on what is often a footnote.

recommend trying it out for yourself too, I just put more emphasis on what is often a footnote.

Side by sides are a far less reliable source to understand difference and preference. Twenty palates you’ve never met are far more reliable than your closest friend or even acquaintances because their relationship with you clouds their judgement of you brew.

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

Pretty much sums it up right there. I've never had a sour that wasn't an immediate drain pour. It tastes bad because it's infected and your body is trying to tell you not to drink the contamination.

Can’t agree with you here buddy. I’ve had some sours that were defuckinglicious. Don’t quote me on the exactitudes but at Hellavu Brewing in Chandler, I’ve had a sour that knocked my socks off, in a good way.

 

[dmtaylor]

Pretty much sums it up right there. I've never had a sour that wasn't an immediate drain pour. It tastes bad because it's infected and your body is trying to tell you not to drink the contamination.

In continuation of this off-topic discussion, I personally do not enjoy extremely expensive 22-oz bombers of salad dressing and will not buy them anymore. Great on salads but not great for sipping.

 

[Sammy86]

If you're convinced warm lager fermentations turn out great (an oft-touted Brulosophism)... then the worst case scenario is you'll have two great batches of beer, one you can start drinking earlier while the other finishes.

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!

 

[Big Monk]

In continuation of this off-topic discussion, I personally do not enjoy extremely expensive 22-oz bombers of salad dressing and will not buy them anymore. Great on salads but not great for sipping.

I am not anti-sour but have limited myself to one or 2 known brands of Belgian origin. Brown or Red Flemish sours are really my jam and I prefer Rodenbach to all others.

Ommegang has some very tasty sour beers as well, including their Pale Sour, Rosetta and Brunetta, which if I remember correctly are made by Liefmans.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

----------------------

I am not anti-sour but have limited myself to one or 2 known brands of Belgian origin. Brown or Red Flemish sours are really my jam and I prefer Rodenbach to all others.

Ommegang has some very tasty sour beers as well, including their Pale Sour, Rosetta and Brunetta, which if I remember correctly are made by Liefmans.

Does true souring require live Lactobacillus? If so, then it is worth mentioning that there is zero live Lactobacillus in Lactic Acid.

 

[VikeMan]

Does true souring require live Lactobacillus? If so, then it is worth mentioning that there is zero live Lactobacillus in Lactic Acid.

I think the beers @Big Monk referred to probably use pedio/acetobacter as well as Lactobacillus.

But for Lactobacillus beers (think Berliner/Gose), I think most people would say that simply dosing a beer with lactic acid probably wouldn't get you there. Lactobacillus makes things other than just lactic acid (analogous to brewers yeast making more than just alcohol). I really don't know what all those things are, but there's more than just a "pure lactic acid" flavor after souring with Lactobacillus.

It would be nice if dosing with acid could make the same beer. I think a lot of brewers, both comm'l and home, would take advantage of that. It does get mentioned in articles from time to time as a quick way to make a sour, but always seems to come with a caveat that it's not the same. Full disclosure: I haven't tried it.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Lallemand now offers two bacteria and one yeast which provide for souring during fermentation.

1) Wildbrew Sour Pitch (bacteria)
2) WildBrew Helveticus Pitch (bacteria)
3) WildBrew Philly Sour (yeast)

 

[eric19312]

Side by sides are a far less reliable source to understand difference and preference. Twenty palates you’ve never met are far more reliable than your closest friend or even acquaintances because their relationship with you clouds their judgement of you brew.

This +1

SIde by sides are just terrible. Unless you are measuring something clearly discernible with an instrument...final gravity with a hydrometer, IBU with a lab instrument, or can be tested simultaneously with your eyes (clarity, color, head retention) you need to understand how easily your other senses are to mislead. Look at these famous experiments:

In 2001, Frederic Brochet conducted two experiments at the University of Bordeaux.

In one experiment, he got 54 oenology (the study of wine tasting and wine making) undergraduates together and had them taste one glass of red wine and one glass of white wine. He had them describe each wine in as much detail as their expertise would allow. What he didn't tell them was both were the same wine. He just dyed the white one red. In the other experiment, he asked the experts to rate two different bottles of red wine. One was very expensive, the other was cheap. Again, he tricked them. This time he had put the cheap wine in both bottles. So what were the results?

The tasters in the first experiment, the one with the dyed wine, described the sorts of berries and grapes and tannins they could detect in the red wine just as if it really was red. Every single one, all 54, could not tell it was white. In the second experiment, the one with the switched labels, the subjects went on and on about the cheap wine in the expensive bottle. They called it complex and rounded. They called the same wine in the cheap bottle weak and flat.
source: 'You Are Not So Smart': Why We Can't Tell Good Wine From Bad

Taste and smell are clearly blunt instruments that are easily mislead when it comes to tasting wine. I have no doubt the same applies to beer. I hear the argument that Brulosophy could do better experiments but I am still not aware of anyone else at the homebrewer level doing so. Yes you super-tasters, 20 randoms doing a flawed triangle tests analyzed by azz backwards statistics are more interesting as a data point (to me at least) than your own side-by-side anecdotes.

 

[h22lude]

Again, proving my point. It doesn't affect your brewing in anyway, shape or form. And if people read the article using the same critical thinking skills they were taught in let's say middle school, then it shouldn't affect them either.

This statement doesn't make sense to me. Are you expecting brand new home brewers to realize Bru is using sub par testing practices and the shortcut methods they are testing is not the way to make good beer?

 

[Sammy86]

This statement doesn't make sense to me. Are you expecting brand new home brewers to realize Bru is using sub par testing practices and the shortcut methods they are testing is not the way to make good beer?

I am expecting brand new home brewers as well as most adults to read something with critical thinking skills. I don't believe that's asking too much of people.

Your opinion is that they are using Methods of making beer that are not good...Have you tried one of their beers using the methods? I'm not getting into the whole testing methods again because I'm not changing your mind and you're not changing mine.

 

[AzOr]

 

[Gnomebrewer]

Are you expecting brand new home brewers to realize ... the shortcut methods they are testing is not the way to make good beer?

I disagree with this. I think the methods that they use make good beer. I believe that better methods (which are also more complicated) can make great beer, but the methods they use are a good starting point (and simple) to get a new brewer into the hobby.


Note: the sub-par testing methods part of h22lude's quote is removed because I definitely do agree with that.

 

[Big Monk]

I disagree with this. I think the methods that they use make good beer. I believe that better methods (which are also more complicated) can make great beer, but the methods they use are a good starting point (and simple) to get a new brewer into the hobby.


Note: the sub-par testing methods part of h22lude's quote is removed because I definitely do agree with that.

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.

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

 

[h22lude]

I am expecting brand new home brewers as well as most adults to read something with critical thinking skills. I don't believe that's asking too much of people.

Your opinion is that they are using Methods of making beer that are not good...Have you tried one of their beers using the methods? I'm not getting into the whole testing methods again because I'm not changing your mind and you're not changing mine.

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.

 

[Clyde McCoy]

Apologies if this has already been pointed out, but the author is comparing RO to lightly-treated water.

Ca 0 | Mg 0 | Na 0 | SO4 0 | Cl 0

vs.

Ca 55 | Mg 5 | Na 0 | SO4 72 | Cl 59

Grains, hops, and fermentation will contribute tens (Na) to potentially hundreds (SO4, Cl) of ppm depending on recipe, process, equipment, etc. Perhaps the difference in starting hardness could be noticeable (0 vs. 158 ppm), but again, the difference isn't that large.

This experiment would be much more informative if the author had submitted the finished beers for water analysis. I'd be willing to bet their profiles came out quite similar.

So in a magical world where all other variables could be perfectly controlled, I'd be pretty surprised if anyone could reliably tell these starting profiles apart.

And no, this is not an argument against treating your brewing liquor.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

In my book that isn't lightly mineralized water. I'd call it moderately mineralized.

 

[Clyde McCoy]

In my book that isn't lightly mineralized water. I'd call it moderately mineralized.

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.

 

[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.