Brulosophy

[BrewnWKopperKat]

My biggest beef had that they frequently choose recipes that would mask the differences. For example, looking at late boil hop additions vs flameout or whirlpool additions with respect to IBUs. The have a recipe with 3 oz of hops. With people routinely putting 6-8 oz of whirlpool hops in a NEIPA, their recipe isn't likely to really highlight the differences.

Are you referring to Kettle Hop vs. Hop Stand?

If so, I found this article interesting from a different perspective: a 'short and shoddy' Pale Ale - throw all the hops in at the end of the boil and let the kettle sit for a while:

...
To evaluate the differences between a Pale Ale hopped at various points during the boil and one where all hops were added at flameout for a 20 minute hop stand.
...
participants were unable to reliably distinguish a Pale Ale hopped that was hopped at multiple points during the boil from one where all of the hops were added at flameout and steeped for 23 minutes
...

What's also interesting in this article is that they used current recipe software to estimate IBUs and had the IBUs measured in a lab.

 

[Moose_MI]

.... that's for my process, of course ..... Its hard to make absolute statements in the brewing world, there are way too many variables.

^^^ This.

 

[Aggie10]

I object to their usage of the term Short and Shoddy. Brulosophy doesn't have a clue what short and shoddy brewing is. Their process and setup is sooooo much longer and advanced than mine.

I have been striving to find the quickest and simplest method to make beer of a quality level I enjoy. I can bang out an extract based batch in 45 minutes from stovetop on to yeast pitched. Quality is better than my local craft brewery's weaker varieties but not as good as their good ones.

I'm sure I could improve my process but I have extremely limited time and actually am more interested in understanding the scientific side of brewing and using that knowledge to develop as quick and simple of a process that produces a decent product. Brulosophy has helped me do that immensely!

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

I object to their usage of the term Short and Shoddy. Brulosophy doesn't have a clue what short and shoddy brewing is. Their process and setup is sooooo much longer and advanced than mine.

Isn't "Short and Shoddy" just for all grain brewing? With extract+steep, I thought it was called "Quick and Quaffable".

 

[madscientist451]

. I've never really understood the difference? Aside from batch size I cannot see what the difference is between pro and home brewing.

Just today was reading through the short and shoddy brew sessions and taste panel results. Some short and shoddy brews were better received than others.
Short and shoddy brewing is an example of what home brewers can do that pro brewers can't afford to do. The short and shoddy method has lower efficiency, so you have to make up for it by adding more grain. The hop utilization is also decreased, so you have to use more hops. If you were in business, the extra cost of more grain and hops wouldn't be equal to the time you saved brewing short and shoddy. If you are brewing on a 10bbl (or larger) system you also don't want to waste ingredients and produce mediocre beer. A little extra grain and hops doesn't matter all that much when you are brewing 5 gallons. Fine tuning the recipes to suit your taste should result in acceptable beers (for certain styles) using the short and shoddy method. For me its a better option compared to using extract. I've never liked the extract beer flavor, but for some its OK.
I'm a wage slave and don't have much time for brewing these days, so I'm going to sacrifice some of my 200+lb stockpile of grains and do some short and shoddy brewing. I'm thankful for the Brulosphy exbeeriments, I've learned a lot from them.

 

[Blazinlow86]

Just today was reading through the short and shoddy brew sessions and taste panel results. Some short and shoddy brews were better received than others.
Short and shoddy brewing is an example of what home brewers can do that pro brewers can't afford to do. The short and shoddy method has lower efficiency, so you have to make up for it by adding more grain. The hop utilization is also decreased, so you have to use more hops. If you were in business, the extra cost of more grain and hops wouldn't be equal to the time you saved brewing short and shoddy. If you are brewing on a 10bbl (or larger) system you also don't want to waste ingredients and produce mediocre beer. A little extra grain and hops doesn't matter all that much when you are brewing 5 gallons. Fine tuning the recipes to suit your taste should result in acceptable beers (for certain styles) using the short and shoddy method. For me its a better option compared to using extract. I've never liked the extract beer flavor, but for some its OK.
I'm a wage slave and don't have much time for brewing these days, so I'm going to sacrifice some of my 200+lb stockpile of grains and do some short and shoddy brewing. I'm thankful for the Brulosphy exbeeriments, I've learned a lot from them.

you have a point in regards to efficiency but thats not really relevent to good or bad beer imho. what about the 20 other things that have been found as insignificant that pro brewers do? pitch rates, water, ph, closed transfers etc those are the big ones. if those werent important i dont think pro home/commercial brewers would be doing them. cheers

 

[madscientist451]

Methods used in commercial beverage production may or may not be necessary.
If you are running 100,000 barrels of beer a year through your brewery, you want to do everything you can to make sure there aren't any problems. Do you have to use the exact same methods to make good beer at home? The answer depends on too many variables to list here, but the exbeeriments on Brulosophy show that you can get away with making significant changes in standard commercial brewing processes and still make good beer.

 

[eric19312]

No, I don't. They did an experiment on 'fast lagers', am I correct, or was that a different person(?), and found that the traditional lagering methods didn't make a difference. In any case, I know that, in my lagers, beers that I've fermented for a month and then lagered for a month taste better and get better scores at competitions than beers that I didn't. So, I take my time with lagers now.

Now, that's for my process, of course - someone else could make better beers than mine using fast lager techniques, perhaps. But for the beers I've made, I've had better success with slower lagering than fast.

Its hard to make absolute statements in the brewing world, there are way too many variables.

I think this is good example of limitation in the triangle taste method used by Brulosophy. The choice to try to preserve the scientific integrity of the test leads them to not disclose anything about the experiment. They don’t even admit the beer is a lager and then see how many people can tell the beers apart.

Compare that to a BJCP competition where the judges are looking at a flight of all different beers, but all supposed to be within a narrowly defined style. That provides a bunch of contextual information not available to the triangle testers. Your finding that your beers score better in BJCP competitions when lagered longer does not invalidate the original finding.

So should we ignore triangle testing and simply judge impact based on competition scores? Hahaha right I know. If you are not a believer in power of confirmation bias just remember the last time you read a score sheet for a beer you loved and the judges didn’t...

 

[brewbama]

I think Brülosophy performs a service to the Homebrew community. It’s up to the individual brewer to decide how to best use the results in their brewery.

They did one experiment where they lagered a batch and didn’t lager an identical batch. The majority of tasters couldn’t taste the difference. But the clarity of the lagered beer vs the haze of the unlagered beer was remarkable. The brewer decided he wouldn’t lager his beer in the future based on taste. But It made me decide that I’ll definitely lager my lagers based on appearance. This is an example of letting chips fall where they may and allowing the reader to decide based on the results.

Another example: last summer I had to get from grain to glass in a much shorter time than I normally would using my process so I could participate in a charity event. I used some of the short cuts described on Brülosophy and an AHA article by Drew Beachum. The results were substandard and I apologized every time I served a beer at that event. I believe it reflected poorly on me as a brewer and made a vow never to use those shortcuts again. Next time I’ll either decline the invitation or pull a beer from my normal rotation vs brewing a specific beer for the event. I brought the remainder of that keg home and let it cold condition for a while. It turned out to be drinkable which confirmed that portion of my process as invaluable for me. I attribute that experience which I would not otherwise have gained to Brülosophy and the AHA article.

Anyone who disagrees with their approach should start their own site and perform comparisons based on a better approach. It would also perform a service to the community. But to say they suck so they shouldn’t do it or decline to drink their beer!? How would not trying it or them not doing the comparisons confirm a better process? Who knows, they may do a comparison that should be adopted.

 

[lump42]

So now we're back on track I should clarify my original question better. I have nothing against brulosophy or even have any issues with there experiments and or outcome. They do there tests and report what they find. It's cool they do. The issue at hand to me is more so brewers that feel doing any of the additional steps that were found insignificant are a waste and referencing the brulosophy test as proof. Again my stance is taking 1-2 shortcuts is possibly so minute it's unnoticible to most but take 15- 20 shortcuts and it's gonna be noticible. Cheers

I believe this topic has been brought up many times before, maybe every 6 mo to a year, and follows the same course as this has.

 

[Blazinlow86]

I believe this topic has been brought up many times before, maybe every 6 mo to a year, and follows the same course as this has.

Yes it's unfortunate that it keeps going back to brulosophy doing something incorrect which is not the case. It's more that brewers point to there experiments as rational that doing anything more than bare minimum is a waste at the "homebrew" level. I look at it like if you only omit this one thing your brew may not show the error. Cheers

 

[lump42]

Yes it's unfortunate that it keeps going back to brulosophy doing something incorrect which is not the case. It's more that brewers point to there experiments as rational that doing anything more than bare minimum is a waste at the "homebrew" level. I look at it like if you only omit this one thing your brew may not show the error. Cheers

I believe there "short and shoddy" series were an attempt to combine as many "bad" practices as possible to see where it falls apart. From reading it can be different but not a failure. Their experiments at best are pilot studies and preliminary data, but the initial stated intent was never to 'prove' anything. They were to spark critical thinking about long held brewing 'truths'. It's a shame that so many take the results as proof, but just as much that others dismiss their work with disdain for not being 'real' science. Like many things hotly debated, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[Blazinlow86]

I believe there "short and shoddy" series were an attempt to combine as many "bad" practices as possible to see where it falls apart. From reading it can be different but not a failure. Their experiments at best are pilot studies and preliminary data, but the initial stated intent was never to 'prove' anything. They were to spark critical thinking about long held brewing 'truths'. It's a shame that so many take the results as proof, but just as much that others dismiss their work with disdain for not being 'real' science. Like many things hotly debated, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Yup my point exactly. Nothing wrong with there experiments or there outcomes. Just don't think that following *all* the insignificant results in the *same* brew will not have significant flaws compared to not using the shortcuts. Cheers

 

[lump42]

Yup my point exactly. Nothing wrong with there experiments or there outcomes. Just don't think that following *all* the insignificant results in the *same* brew will not have significant flaws compared to not using the shortcuts. Cheers

And here's the other side of of Brulosophy as fact. Unless you try and brew with all their insignificant results will you know if the variables will noticeably affect the beer. Until then the results shouldn't be dismissed. They may not be flaws depending on the brewer's goal. It's only a flaw if it isn't wanted or appreciated.

 

[Blazinlow86]

And here's the other side of of Brulosophy as fact. Unless you try and brew with all their insignificant results will you know if the variables will noticeably affect the beer. Until then the results shouldn't be dismissed. They may not be flaws depending on the brewer's goal. It's only a flaw if it isn't wanted or appreciated.

Another good point. I think alot of there followers don't bother trying to brew without the shortcuts so they never know what there missing as they feel it's a waste of time that's been confirmed via brulosophy and of course means more time and money. For me personally I went from not doing all the extras when i started brewing and ended up with mediocre beer as expected. It was ok "for homebrew" or " 25cents a beer " but to get to the next level obviously requires alot more attention. I believe I'm overly picky admittedly. And you are correct about the Brewers goal. Reminds me of a ipa I once made with a major astringency that i ended up dumping as undrinkable. One random taster LOVED it claiming it was "hoppy" lol. Cheers

 

[Nubiwan]

Brewing Science is an applied science. The people, especially academics in the field, contributing are academics and professionals who typically teach other professionals in the brewing field.

Experts in brewing science are typically directly applying those concepts in the fields with measurable results.

At the risk of awakening the posting police...... apologies first for reading a 2 year old thread.

Agree that there is immense catalogue of science in the field, but at whose behest is all the science developed? Who pays for it all? Whose interests does it support? Its not done out of the goodness of peoples hearts is my guess. Certainly not backed by the home brewing establishment, and just how big is the home brewing market versuas that of even one of the giant commercials alone?

So who does pay for all this science?

Is it not absolutley necessary for commercial breweries to understand the nuances of even slight variations in temperature, pitch rate, oxidization, boil time, chill rates, decoction process, lagerring, etc. so that they can maintain an optimal consistency throughout their process? Maximize efficiency? Their scalle is global, not 10 gallon batches. Its not even about great tasting beer, as many a craft brew enthusiast, and home brewer might attest, while slugging down a Coors Light. Its about making sure that every can comes out tasting the same, and being as efficient with ingredients as they can possibly be. The science therefore is what they need to be so exact in the scale of their process.

Does it all scale to the home brewer, and is it necessary to adhere to science to make a decent or very good beer? I have my doubts. While i dont pretend to make the crispest, clearest most consistent beer in the world, i still prefer the majority of what i brew (with a simple BIAB process) to any budeweiser, coors light, miller light etc. Its not a high bar in terms of taste, after all, outside the incredible consistency they achieve, despite the $billions they sell a year.

Even with the science, the majors struggle to brew the same tasting beer when brewed in Canada, Europe, and USA as attested by many folks. A distinct difference between a US coors light and that sold / made in Canada imho.

 

[danimal92sport]

You’re not the guy who also bumped the other Brulosphy thread...are you?

 

[grampamark]

 

[hopjuice_71]

You’re not the guy who also bumped the other Brulosphy thread...are you?

Interesting that someone from the midwestern US would have Bob and Doug McKenzie as their avatar. "Take off you hoser".. ..spoken by a real Canuck

 

[Nubiwan]

You’re not the guy who also bumped the other Brulosphy thread...are you?

I did. Is it against any rule? I assure you, i dont have any agenda, just interested in peoples point of view. I think we should learn something every day.

I did apologize for reviving this one at the onset of my post, for thst very reason. Perhaps they should merge common threads. The topic does spark discourse nonetheless, and no ones arms are being twisted to read it, nor comment, as you have.

The matter of science is often raised in defence of a pursuit of quality. Think my point of view is valid, so wanted to say it. FeeL free to contribute or ignore.

 

[IslandLizard]

Perhaps they should merge common threads.

"They" being the mods and admins?

Let's clarify a few things here.
Of course we have multiple threads on same or similar topics. Many are discussions. Merging them at a later stage would be ridiculous, as posts and replies from both will get mixed up, confusing readers.

We often do merge "young" threads on same (or similar) topic, especially those started by the same OP. Sometimes duplicate threads are created in error, which will be corrected too, of course.