Brulosophy

[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.