Do "professional" brewers consider brulosophy to be a load of bs?

[ajdelange]

In using discrimination tests (like the triangle test) one has to be very careful about how the test is constructed and how the data is interpreted. In a triangle test M panelists are presented triplets of beer samples of which two are the same and one is different. They are asked to determine which of the 3 is the odd beer and N is the number that are able to do so. They are then asked to report how the two beers they have before them compare with respect to some parameter of interest which depends on the reason behind the experiment. The parameter could be very broad or very specific. For example the panelist might be asked which beer the prefers (which is better in his opinion) or whether one beer contains noticeably more diacetyl that the other. Some number, m < M will report preferring (or less diacetyl) in one or the other of the beers. But a smaller number (n < N) of those who 'qualified' in the first test, i.e. were able to correctly identify the odd beer, will find one of the beers to be better (or contain less diacetyl).

The test returns a number, p(M,N,n) which is the probability that a panel whose members hadn't a clue and picked the odd beer by rolling a die (if 1 or 2 comes up choose A, if 3 or 4 choose B, if 5 or 6 choose C) and then determined preference (diacetyl) by tossing a coin) would have produce N or more qualified members out of whom n or more would have preferred one of the beers. This is the probability that more than M-1 panelists qualified and more than n-1 of the qualified picked one of the beers by random chance i.e. without any knowledge of how to taste beer or irrespective or whether one beer was better or contained more diacetyl. If this probability is low enough (typically 1%) we conclude that M,N and n were arrived at by some process other than random chance and that the fraction of preferences, n/N is a valid measure of the goodness or relative diacetyl content of the beers being tested.

Note, and this is very important. We are testing the panel AND the beer. Just as one cannot measure voltage with an uncalibrated voltmeter one cannot measure diacetly with a panel that contains members who are insensitive to diacetyl (some people just don't taste it). The panel must be calibrated for the parameter being tested. This is obviously relatively easy to do for a single specific parameter like diacetyl. One takes a beer with known diacetyl level and divides it into two parts one of which is spiked with diacetyl at some level, &#8710;, determined by the desired sensitivity of the test. A, B an C cups are prepared from these two beers and the test carried out. If a large fraction of qualifying panelists finds the spiked beer to be higher in diacetyl and p < 0.01 we are confident that this panel can perceive diacetyl differences of &#8710; or more and can use it to see if, for example, using a particular malt richer in valine than a control malt, improves a particullar beer.

Here we need to interject that is is extremely important to control what he panelist is exposed to. If, in the example of diacetyl, the valine rich malt was also darker in color so that the beer produced from it was darker in color panelists would obviously have no trouble distinguishing the beer containing it as the odd one by color and the test would be invalid. It should be pretty clear that instructing panelists to ignore color isn't going to work so that it would be necessary to mask color in some way such as serving in opaque cups with opaque lids or masking the color with Sinamar.

This is also a good place to mention that panelists should be in comfortable surroundings free from distractions and isolated from one another and that only the data processing people should know which beer is which (i.e. the servers don't). See the ASBC MOA for how to set up a triangle test.

If the question is broader "Which beer is the better beer?" we again must consider the panel. If the two samples were a lager and an ale and we tested with a panel made up of Germans we know what answer we'd get as we would if the panel were 100% Englishmen. Suppose it consisted of 10 of each who, as we are serious about this, were drawn from the quality control staffs of breweries in their respective homelands. I think we could anticipate that they all would qualify and that half would prefer lager. Thus M = 20, N=20, n= 10 and p(20,10,10) = 0.0006 Our data were certainly not arrived at by chance and therefore valid. Lager is not better than ale to a panel composed of equal number of lager preferers and ale preferers. I wouldn't dispute that finding. But they don't tell us anything useful. It would be more meaningful to compose a panel in this case of randomly drawn consumers in a particular market of interest. It is possible, in such a case, that we could obtain a ratio n/N associated with very low probability that the null hypothesis should be accepted (that's what p(M,N,n) is - the null hypothesis is that M,N and n are the results of random guesses) which ratio would show a preference for lager or ale.

That's part of what makes the fact that so many cannot pick the odd one out so interesting to me.

That relates directly to the selection of the panel which must be driven by what one is trying to measure. In the last part of the example above we assumed a panel drawn from the man on the street, presumably of beer buying age. We would expect the number of qualifying panelists to be lower than in the quality control department panel. This isn't necessarily a disaster. Assume we have a panel of 20 such, that only 8 of them qualify but that out of those 7 prefer lager. p(20,8,7) = 0.007 so we can be confident that 78% of this panel prefers lager at the better than 1% confidence level. Thus low qualification level is not a disaster in and of itself but it focuses on the panel. For a test of public acceptance we want a panel that represents the public and must live with low qualification rates but it doubtless would make sense, in this case, to increase the number of panelists. p(40,16,14) = 0.0038 and the estimated preference ratio is still the same but the variance in the estimate is smaller.

Then we get into questions of how well these 20 guys represent the general public (or whatever demographic the experimenter is interested in - presumably home brewers). The test should be repeated and the results combined.

I fully expect that most of the brickbats that are hurled at the Brulosopher experiments would derive from considerations such as these. I doubt they have ever calibrated a panel. I don't see how, with the resources at hand, they could replicate the experiments.

And that's why I'm interested in knowing the conditions under which the tasters did the triangle test. Are there conditions external to the test which are masking results, i.e., palate fatigue, just had a big onion and garlic burger, tasters have had six beers already and are three sheets to the wind, you know the list.

Those are certainly factors that one would expect to influence the qualification rate and I mentioned a couple of other things above.

 

[mongoose33]

<Snip some stuff everybody who's read this thread probably already knows>

Note, and this is very important. We are testing the panel AND the beer.

I'm a little surprised, AJ. I'm getting the sense that you didn't read the entire thread as you'd see that we've already been there and done that.

<Snip a bunch of stuff about the importance of controls. That was also addressed earlier in noting issues of alternative explanations.>

This is also a good place to mention that panelists should be in comfortable surroundings free from distractions and isolated from one another and that only the data processing people should know which beer is which (i.e. the servers don't). See the ASBC MOA for how to set up a triangle test.

Agreed. It's not completed according to the protocols though it is better than a lot of ways they could have done comparisons. Triangle test procedures were also posted earlier in the thread.

If the question is broader "Which beer is the better beer?" we again must consider the panel.

This was addressed earlier with the statements "People like what they like" as well as whether that might influence how they perceive the test beers.

That relates directly to the selection of the panel which must be driven by what one is trying to measure.

That was addressed earlier as well, in part by noting that the composition of the panels are unknown. Presumably tasters are people who are more devoted to beer than perhaps the average person, but nonetheless we do not know to what population those samples are generalizable.

Then we get into questions of how well these 20 guys represent the general public (or whatever demographic the experimenter is interested in - presumably home brewers). The test should be repeated and the results combined.

Exactly. That was addressed with the call for replication.

I fully expect that most of the brickbats that are hurled at the Brulosopher experiments would derive from considerations such as these.

I'm sure you saw that in my post, where I noted that my concerns were with post-brewing, not w/ the experimental procedures themselves which I find generally pretty well done.

I doubt they have ever calibrated a panel. I don't see how, with the resources at hand, they could replicate the experiments.

I've never seen the exbeerimental writeups note that. This is the concern I have when I ask what testers were doing, eating, drinking before the test. The problem is there are a lot of alternative explanations that could account for the results. It's possible there are detectable differences that are masked by the participants' being poorly prepared to taste the differences.

 

[Murphys_Law]

Guys, you do realize you're talking about a bunch of guys/girls drinking beer out of plastic cups in somebody's garage or club room, right? All the beers seemed to be brewed in a garage and/or driveway. Not a lab.

I've never met the guy(s) who do these but I don't the feel they present them as gospel or the new brew dogma.

It gets people thinking, on a home scale, what we face while we brew. A lot of these seem to follow the all too familiar, "Is my beer ruined" threads we all see. No, your beer isn't ruined. Relax. Have some fun and enjoy the hobby. Drink beer.

They are fun, thought provoking and get us, as home brewers, to rethink our process, and to relax - we're making beer!

I've said this before but I take away one thing - beer is forgiving.

I personally like what they are doing and I've played around to tweak my own process. It's up to me if I want to adopt or not based on my tastes.

 

[brandonlovesbeer]

.

Almost everything I know about brewing I have learned from enthusiastic amateurs and the vast majority of them are American and Canadian homebrewers. Professional brewers don't want to tell you nada, the just wanna keep it all up their sleeve.

I agree 100%. I've never met a pro brewery willing to give away any tricks of the trade. And this coming from a guy who used to work for a craft brewery. Which also doubled as the largest homebrew store in the state.

The owner/brewmaster would never divulge a single thing. All recipes were top secret and all processes were top secret. I had to sign a NDA when I began working.
He must have too. Because he would flat out say, "I'm not answering that." If you asked a procedure related question.

 

[applescrap]

The same ol, same ol. Folks holding on for dear life to their brewing dogma. This is my new soap box... brewing is not a moral endeavor, its an aesthetic one. 8 fermentation temp xbmts now, 8, and by 4 different people (i think) who made the brew. Let me ask this, how many times do they need to test it, till someone should respect the information. Once is enough for me. How many times do they need a mash temp experiment, or is the real issue people just don't want to change what they think they know because they read it in a book. Now experimental Homebrew is doing some test as well. I welcome all data from all sources. The problem is most of its theoretical, they are some of the few people offering emperical. There's no reason to dog what they're doing. Even if you don't want to change your practice. I'm not diving in here, professional is a different realm, but I'm almost willing to bet the carryover is similar.

Edit, man i would love to sit down with some of you and give you three exact same beers, tell you it was a fermentation temp experiment and then listen to you pontificate.

 

[Pkrd]

Because he would flat out say, "I'm not answering that." If you asked a procedure related question.

Might just mean he has no idea why he does what he does, but that how he was shown it, and it works.

 

[ericbw]

The same ol, same ol. Folks holding on for dear life to their brewing dogma. This is my new soap box... brewing is not a moral endeavor, its an aesthetic one. 8 fermentation temp xbmts now, 8, and by 4 different people (i think) who made the brew. Let me ask this, how many times do they need to test it, till someone should respect the information. Once is enough for me. How many times do they need a mash temp experiment, or is the real issue people just don't want to change what they think they know because they read it in a book. Now experimental Homebrew is doing some test as well. I welcome all data from all sources. The problem is most of its theoretical, they are some of the few people offering emperical. There's no reason to dog what they're doing. Even if you don't want to change your practice. I'm not diving in here, professional is a different realm, but I'm almost willing to bet the carryover is similar.

Edit, man i would love to sit down with some of you and give you three exact same beers, tell you it was a fermentation temp experiment and then listen to you pontificate.

That last part is funny!

 

[dmtaylor]

I'm getting the sense that you didn't read the entire thread as you'd see that we've already been there and done that.

<Snip a bunch of stuff...>

I ain't gonna read the entire thread either. Ain't nobody got time fo dat.

Where Brulosophy goes a little too far in my view is expecting 95% confidence before they'll declare a result statistically significant. Come on... That's overkill.
The Brulosopy team and chump tasters ain't scientists. But if you were to lower the significance expectation to perhaps just 80-85% confidence to match the scienciness of these experiments, then suddenly a lot more of their experiments indicate something *might* actually be going on with their chosen variables than their conclusions currently indicate. In other words, where they come close to "significance" and just miss it by a little, there might actually be something happening worth further exploration. THOSE then are the xbmts that should be revisited in my view... And by independent teams, yadda yadda.

Getting back on topic... I'm sure most of the pros couldn't care less about Brulosopy. Why would they. They make beer and sell it. Even if it really sucks, they sell it to the masses just fine, no problem and no need for improvement. Baa baa.

 

[ericbw]

Brulosophy doesn't seem like they're out to improve beer but to help improve the processes for homebrewers.

 

[applescrap]

That last part is funny!

He's done it a few times. His first time on beer Nation, I think it was, you can listen to the podcast. They were pissed in a fun way. He never reveals what is being tested, but in this case it would have been fun if he did.

 

[applescrap]

I feel some of your positions are that we should do everything the way a professional does it and never question anything. I got into this later and never believed in much from the start. The guys at my lhbs telling me when i started, they still believe this way at at least 3 lhbs in denver, that biab is some sort of joke, or stepping stone, or iffy method made me KNOW right from the start not to believe or trust any aspect of brewing with 100% blind faith other than ideas as a basic lover of food that I hold deeply in my heart. As (i hope) we all know biab was/is an excellent brewing consideration.

So mr bigtime sitting at the bar at a taproom in one of our many average breweries, hangs out with the brewer and thinks hes hot s..t. Takes out his phone and shows me his wannabe pro rig, which is an expensive gas burner single plane 3 vessel. I have been in alot of breweries and i have never seen them using three, 15g vessels as the system. Upon first glance to me there looks to be little comparison between the equipment I see in breweries and on this forum.

Anyways we start talking beer. And it's clear right away that he thinks his system can create better beer then a pot on the stove, a hot rod in a vessel, or any other kind of thrown together system. This shows clearly how some cannot see the forest through the trees. He believes that the more expensive system you create, the better beer you make regardless. He argues that he can taste one degree in Mash temp. One degree. Then he goes on to explain the difference that would occur within that degrees. When he finds out I don't even measure anything and never have calls over the Brewer. Brewer won't side with him on Mash temp obviously, but his answer is critical to this thread. Now I am going to actually answer the topic.


Professionals and brulosophy.........


His answer is excellent. He obviously knows you dont have to measure anything and can create great beer. He said, what if you make a great beer and want to make it exactly the same way again. He continues on that, what if you want to make it exactly the same over and over. What if it wins an award and want to repeat and on and on.

This is the essence of a professional. This is the essence of production. In production, you either hit your mark or you don't. It is not a question of good or bad. You either hit your numbers or you don't. The Anheuser-Busch Brewers don't sit around questioning Mash temp, they either hit the numbers they have been given or it is ruined. Here on this website we are looking at things as good or bad. Furthermore, i believe professional Brewers are questioning and challenging everything. At least the good ones are. Imo, many of the things they have come up with, trickle down into our world to techniques we use. I listen to podcasts on my way home from work and to work and while I'm walking sometimes. Rarely, if never and I mean rarely, do these pro Brewers ever talk about process, unless it's something interesting. They are focused on what matters imo, the recipe and how it's done. They don't care how it's done, once it's great they make it over and over the same way again. They talk about putting Doritos in beer. They talk about the water they use and how they treat it. They talk about why they use so much of one grain or another as kind of a staple in their beers. They talk about tasting the grains and where they buy them. They dont waste their time wondering about fermentation temp, they feement at different temperatures, testing recipes, making the best beer they can or at least they should be, imo. Then if they find something that works they produce it the exact same way over and over again (this is the pro part). Big breweries have people that only Brew over and over and over again. They also employ people that test different beers and methods over and over and over again.

 

[applescrap]

I ain't gonna read the entire thread either. Ain't nobody got time fo dat.

The Brulosopy team and chump tasters ain't scientists.

Wow.

So you just called james spencer, steve wilkes, mike tonsmeier, andy sparks, and denny conn chumps. As well as all the people of beer nation who have tasted his beer. And the rest of the aha forum guys and nhbc people.

Just so you know he extrapolated the data and found that bjcp judges, bmc drinkers, and non beer drinkers all score the same over time. I guess we are all chumps in your book.

View attachment 1501952300119.jpg

View attachment 1501952324652.jpg

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

If the question is broader "Which beer is the better beer?" we again must consider the panel. If the two samples were a lager and an ale and we tested with a panel made up of Germans we know what answer we'd get as we would if the panel were 100% Englishmen. Suppose it consisted of 10 of each who, as we are serious about this, were drawn from the quality control staffs of breweries in their respective homelands. I think we could anticipate that they all would qualify and that half would prefer lager. Thus M = 20, N=20, n= 10 and p(20,10,10) = 1E-10. Our data were certainly not arrived at by chance and therefore valid. Lager is not better than ale to a panel composed of equal number of lager preferers and ale preferers.

This is the part that worries me about "which beer do you prefer" tests. I haven't read the "warm-fermented lager" exbeeriments yet, so I don't know if that was answered. But I understand that the tasting panel preferred warm to cold.

Which is fine, if you're judging this "to style". I.e. if the tasters are proficient, they should be told "both beers are a Vienna lager, I'm not telling you what variable is being measured, but you have to answer which beer is the better Vienna lager."

If you do that, and the tasters are proficient and knowledgeable about the style, their answers shouldn't depend on whether they're Germans or Englishmen. If cold-fermenting or warm-fermenting makes a better LAGER, they should be able to figure that out. If you're just asking them which beer they prefer, you are not actually addressing the variable you're trying to, because if a taster doesn't recognize that a beer style should be very clean and low in esters, they may vote for the opposite beer if they like fruity esters in their beer.

 

[dmtaylor]

Yes, we are all chumps. You must have never seen my .sig.

 

[eric19312]

This is the part that worries me about "which beer do you prefer" tests. I haven't read the "warm-fermented lager" exbeeriments yet, so I don't know if that was answered. But I understand that the tasting panel preferred warm to cold.

Which is fine, if you're judging this "to style". I.e. if the tasters are proficient, they should be told "both beers are a Vienna lager, I'm not telling you what variable is being measured, but you have to answer which beer is the better Vienna lager."

If you do that, and the tasters are proficient and knowledgeable about the style, their answers shouldn't depend on whether they're Germans or Englishmen. If cold-fermenting or warm-fermenting makes a better LAGER, they should be able to figure that out. If you're just asking them which beer they prefer, you are not actually addressing the variable you're trying to, because if a taster doesn't recognize that a beer style should be very clean and low in esters, they may vote for the opposite beer if they like fruity esters in their beer.

It is important to focus on the key finding in these experiments...was the difference perceptible to the pool of typical beer drinkers that includes mainly home brewers BJCP judges. The preference data is interesting when it points at a really bad taste especially, but otherwise is just anecdotal info. In the warm lager experiment the tasters were clearly able to tell the difference. The warm lager beer might be great, but it clearly is different tasting than the traditionally produced product.. personally I prefer IPA to lager every time. Do you really care which of these lagers I prefer? Hope not...but the result that it makes a difference how you brew it stands. You can use that info however you like.

 

[Pkrd]

I'm still trying to figure out the difference between a professional brewer and a "professional" brewer.
Anyone?

 

[BBQB]

The second one had quotes around it

 

[applescrap]

This is the part that worries me about "which beer do you prefer" tests. I haven't read the "warm-fermented lager" exbeeriments yet, so I don't know if that was answered. But I understand that the tasting panel preferred warm to cold.

Which is fine, if you're judging this "to style". I.e. if the tasters are proficient, they should be told "both beers are a Vienna lager, I'm not telling you what variable is being measured, but you have to answer which beer is the better Vienna lager."

If you do that, and the tasters are proficient and knowledgeable about the style, their answers shouldn't depend on whether they're Germans or Englishmen. If cold-fermenting or warm-fermenting makes a better LAGER, they should be able to figure that out. If you're just asking them which beer they prefer, you are not actually addressing the variable you're trying to, because if a taster doesn't recognize that a beer style should be very clean and low in esters, they may vote for the opposite beer if they like fruity esters in their beer.

I am not certain you understand the tests completely. The tasters i think are clearly told the style. The idea is they are given 3 beers, two are the same, one is different. Then after that they are asked other questions based on wether they get it right or not. Generally speaking the information people give after getting it right is meaningless especially if everybody on a whole showed no statistical difference. Meaning that if nobody was able to discern the beers apart then their guess was likely just chance, so whatever they have to say doesn't really matter anyways.

The idea is if you test one variable and make two beers, and you serve people one of one and two of the other and they can't tell them apart, then it's plausible to say the variable being tested didn't have an effect or at least didn't have an effect that people could perceive. Not to say that it couldn't be tested in the lab but that, the human mouth was unable to tell the difference.

It is my understanding this method of triangle testing is the gold standard in food and beverage. The game is pick the odd one out. And the people that have done these test many times are certainly getting better at doing that. Perhaps it's just time for people to realize that some things don't matter as much as common thought says.

 

[Pkrd]

The second one had quotes around it

Who was being quoted?

 

[applescrap]

In the warm lager experiment the tasters were clearly able to tell the difference.

No they werent. In 6 of the 8 tests people were not able to reach any level of statistical signifigance. And in one of the 2 that was, was by one taster, on a lager fermented at 82. Furthermore, preference in that case was for the warm one. And in the pictures i showed above, he took wlp800 and fermented it warm and gave it to all those famous people and everyone else and there was absolutely no statistical signifigance at all.


Ps, if you like ipa he just posted a whirlpool vs flameout and people could not statistically identify any difference in thise beers.

 

[ajdelange]

This is the part that worries me about "which beer do you prefer" tests.

This touches on another aspect that didn't get much (if any) mention in my previous post. The result, of course, depends on the panel but they also depend on the instructions given to the panel. Where the instructions call for marking of one or the other of the beers based on opinion rather than something more concrete (such as whether one beer tastes more strongly of diacetyl than the other) we have quite (IMO) a different situation. I know (or think I know) how to calibrate a panel to see if it can detect diacetyl but I don't know how to calibrate one to see if it can detect 'better' beer.

Which is fine, if you're judging this "to style". I.e. if the tasters are proficient, they should be told "both beers are a Vienna lager, I'm not telling you what variable is being measured, but you have to answer which beer is the better Vienna lager."

If you do that, and the tasters are proficient and knowledgeable about the style, their answers shouldn't depend on whether they're Germans or Englishmen. If cold-fermenting or warm-fermenting makes a better LAGER, they should be able to figure that out. If you're just asking them which beer they prefer, you are not actually addressing the variable you're trying to, because if a taster doesn't recognize that a beer style should be very clean and low in esters, they may vote for the opposite beer if they like fruity esters in their beer.

Looking further at the panel instruction aspect: it should be clear that taking a panel of, for example, knowledgeable, experienced tasters such as people from the QC department of a brewery, we could expect results if we ask them to pick the better made beer different from the results expected if we ask them to pick the beer they prefer. A Brit (whom I assumed in an earlier post would prefer ale though in fact the British public, like the public elsewhere, prefers lager) might, in comparing an ale with a minor flaw to a perfect lager, select the ale if asked to pick the beer he prefers and the lager if asked to pick the better made beer.

The point of all this is, once again, that triangle testing is powerful but that one must be very careful in designing the test (randomization, blindness, panel selection, panel instructions, test environment...) and in how he interprets the results.

If I have a nice laboratory with a reliable, well trained staff, a panel of certified (calibrated) tasters that I can use for every test and a limited portfolio of beers for which I seek the learn the effects or minor process/materials variations then triangle testing can be a powerful tool. If I'm working by myself and the panels are drawn from volunteers from my homebrew club I'm not so sure. But data is data and if p(M,N,n) is small enough there is information buried in it somewhere.

 

[applescrap]

This touches on another aspect that didn't get much (if any) mention in my previous post. The result, of course, depends on the panel but they also depend on the instructions given to the panel. Where the instructions call for marking of one or the other of the beers based on opinion rather than something more concrete (such as whether one beer tastes more strongly of diacetyl than the other) we have quite (IMO) a different situation. I know (or think I know) how to calibrate a panel to see if it can detect diacetyl but I don't know how to calibrate one to see if it can detect 'better' beer.



Looking further at the panel instruction aspect: it should be clear that taking a panel of, for example, knowledgeable, experienced tasters such as people from the QC department of a brewery, we could expect results if we ask them to pick the better made beer different from the results expected if we ask them to pick the beer they prefer. A Brit (whom I assumed in an earlier post would prefer ale though in fact the British public, like the public elsewhere, prefers lager) might, in comparing an ale with a minor flaw to a perfect lager, select the ale if asked to pick the beer he prefers and the lager if asked to pick the better made beer.

The point of all this is, once again, that triangle testing is powerful but that one must be very careful in designing the test (randomization, blindness, panel selection, panel instructions, test environment...) and in how he interprets the results.

If I have a nice laboratory with a reliable, well trained staff, a panel of certified (calibrated) tasters that I can use for every test and a limited portfolio of beers for which I seek the learn the effects or minor process/materials variations then triangle testing can be a powerful tool. If I'm working by myself and the panels are drawn from volunteers from my homebrew club I'm not so sure. But data is data and if p(M,N,n) is small enough there is information buried in it somewhere.

You are right, thats why they dont do it, its perception. Perception must be kept out.

No the home brew club is a great judge. After 20 or more of these tests some of them have taken, they must be keen by now. Anyways all data extrapolated proves that any old taster will do. Thats why we both like many of the same beers. My wife doesnt like them or drink them but i trust her on taste unconditionally.

 

[eric19312]

No they werent. In 6 of the 8 tests people were not able to reach any level of statistical signifigance. And in one of the 2 that was, was by one taster, on a lager fermented at 82. Furthermore, preference in that case was for the warm one. And in the pictures i showed above, he took wlp800 and fermented it warm and gave it to all those famous people and everyone else and there was absolutely no statistical signifigance at all.


Ps, if you like ipa he just posted a whirlpool vs flameout and people could not statistically identify any difference in those beers.

I read a few of the experiments maybe not all as I mentioned lager is not my style. Did have a really nice onf from Poland yesterday though and am thinking to give them a try. Main reason I don't lager is temperature controlled fermentation is my bottleneck. I've got room for 10 gallons and can't tie that up for 5-6 weeks on one batch. In reading all of the experiments it seems that ale temperatures probably produce a reasonably good lager with ale turn around time being feasible at this level.

I note that some of the lager temp experiments do seem to be comparing the fast brew "with a cold starting temp" technique to the fast brew "just brew it like an ale" technique. The experiment where they compared a traditional 6+ week lagering process to a ferment-it-like-an-ale did show statistical significance but the brewer concluded that he doesn't care it is still good beer and not persuaded to go back to the traditional 6 week process.

 

[ericbw]

I think there's a misunderstanding throughout these comments. Some have mentioned it - it's not about what is better. It's about if it makes a difference.

In many cases, it doesn't make a difference. So go with the easiest process to get the same result.

 

[thunderwagn]

I read a few of the experiments maybe not all as I mentioned lager is not my style. Did have a really nice onf from Poland yesterday though and am thinking to give them a try. Main reason I don't lager is temperature controlled fermentation is my bottleneck. I've got room for 10 gallons and can't tie that up for 5-6 weeks on one batch. In reading all of the experiments it seems that ale temperatures probably produce a reasonably good lager with ale turn around time being feasible at this level.

I note that some of the lager temp experiments do seem to be comparing the fast brew "with a cold starting temp" technique to the fast brew "just brew it like an ale" technique. The experiment where they compared a traditional 6+ week lagering process to a ferment-it-like-an-ale did show statistical significance but the brewer concluded that he doesn't care it is still good beer and not persuaded to go back to the traditional 6 week process.

I probably never would have considered taking on a lager with my current set up. I have only done ales as my basement maintains a temp which lends itself well to my ale temperature requirements. I brewed a Helles recipe from here on the forums, following what they had experimented with on Brulosophy, and I'm pleased with the results.
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?p=8000320#post8000320
Sometimes, others creativeness opens doors for others who may not have considered options that they thought weren't possible, or were ingrained to believe by old school principles.
I guess in a nutshell, I could care less what pro-brewers think of Brulosophy or their experiments. I'm a homebrewer. From a keeping it enjoyable standpoint, I like what the Brulosophy team does.

 

[The_Bishop]

I'm still trying to figure out the difference between a professional brewer and a "professional" brewer.
Anyone?

Well, a Professional Brewer pays attention to detail and is striving to improve their product as they learn and grow; they make an effort to understand not only what works, but *why* it works.

A 'professional brewer' is a person who owns a brewery and follows rote procedures 'because that's how they've always done it' with little/no regard to the final product quality and has no desire to put forth the effort to improve, because the money is still coming in... for now.

One will have a long tenure as a respected brewery and will likely thrive in an increasingly crowded market. One will most likely fail as the novelty of a local brewery wears off and they get crowded off the taps by other upcoming breweries.

This is all my opinion, of course.

 

[ericbw]

Well, a Professional Brewer pays attention to detail and is striving to improve their product as they learn and grow; they make an effort to understand not only what works, but *why* it works.



A 'professional brewer' is a person who owns a brewery and follows rote procedures 'because that's how they've always done it' with little/no regard to the final product quality and has no desire to put forth the effort to improve, because the money is still coming in... for now.



One will have a long tenure as a respected brewery and will likely thrive in an increasingly crowded market. One will most likely fail as the novelty of a local brewery wears off and they get crowded off the taps by other upcoming breweries.



This is all my opinion, of course.

A professional brewer is one who gets paid to brew.

 

[ericbw]

I probably never would have considered taking on a lager with my current set up. I have only done ales as my basement maintains a temp which lends itself well to my ale temperature requirements. I brewed a Helles recipe from here on the forums, following what they had experimented with on Brulosophy, and I'm pleased with the results.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?p=8000320#post8000320

Sometimes, others creativeness opens doors for others who may not have considered options that they thought weren't possible, or were ingrained to believe by old school principles.

I guess in a nutshell, I could care less what pro-brewers think of Brulosophy or their experiments. I'm a homebrewer. From a keeping it enjoyable standpoint, I like what the Brulosophy team does.

That's why the question was what pros think of it. Not what home brewers who are learning think of it.

 

[thunderwagn]

That's why the question was what pros think of it. Not what home brewers who are learning think of it.

That's your take on it and I'm fine with that.

My response was more to this question posed in the OP:

This has led me to believe that perhaps professional brewers look down on said websites. Has anyone else experienced this? What's the deal here?


Thanks!

 

[Eucrid]

Why are people getting hung up on the "which beer do you prefer" question. Its not important nor do they claim it to be scientific. The main question asked in the triangle test is "which beer is different". Now I have issues with how that is tested but at least address the real purpose of their panels.

BTW my issue is that I've been on off tasting panels where people couldn't detect flavours I found extreme and vice versa. So I don't think the triangle tests are a reliable measure of if a beer is flawed or not. Though I do enjoy the site and read all the posts. I even bought a t-shirt.