How has Brulosophy changed your brewing habits?

[Silver_Is_Money]

Based upon Brulosophy experiments I've implemented the following changes already, and there will be more:

1) After reading the experiment wherein testers could not tell the difference between a lager bitter hopped (60 min boil) with Saaz vs. a lager bitter hopped (60 min boil) with Magnum, I have begun bitter hopping with magnum as my 60 min boil bittering addition to save money.

2) After reading the experiment wherein the testers could not tell apart a lager made with Maris Otter from one made with Pilsner malt, I went out and bought a 25 Kg. bag of Pilsner malt to use as my base malt for a broad range of styles.

3) I've cut back on my boil vigor.

As I've just started to implement these changes over my past 3 brew sessions, time and my taste buds will tell if I ultimately agree with Brulosophy on the above, and eventually on other of their experiemnts.

 

[mongoose33]

Based upon Brulosophy experiments I've implemented the following changes already, and there will be more:


2) After reading the experiment wherein the testers could not tell apart a lager made with Maris Otter from one made with Pilsner malt, I went out and bought a 25 Kg. bag of Pilsner malt to use as my base malt for a broad range of styles.

I'm not aware of this one--the only brulosophy experiment involving Maris Otter I'm aware of is this one:

http://brulosophy.com/2016/06/06/gr...ter-vs-domestic-us-2-row-exbeeriment-results/

Is that the one to which you're referrring, i.e., Maris Otter vs. 2-row?

Or is it this one?

http://brulosophy.com/2017/08/28/gr...lt-2-row-vs-pilsner-malt-exbeeriment-results/

That's 2-row vs. pilsner.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I'm not aware of this one--the only brulosophy experiment involving Maris Otter I'm aware of is this one:

http://brulosophy.com/2016/06/06/gr...ter-vs-domestic-us-2-row-exbeeriment-results/

Is that the one to which you're referrring, i.e., Maris Otter vs. 2-row?

Or is it this one?

http://brulosophy.com/2017/08/28/gr...lt-2-row-vs-pilsner-malt-exbeeriment-results/

That's 2-row vs. pilsner.

I see now where i accidentally conflated and confused the two of them, and the one I intended was this one:

http://brulosophy.com/2017/08/28/gr...lt-2-row-vs-pilsner-malt-exbeeriment-results/

The test in which there was no statistical difference detected was the one between 2-Row and Pilsner, and not between Maris Otter and Pilsner, and I stand corrected.

What impressed me in the first one was that even though a difference between 2-Row and Maris Otter was easily statistically detected, in the end 10 testers who could tell a difference preferred Maris Otter and 10 testers who could tell a difference preferred 2-Row Brewers, so among them it was a dead even split as to preference. So if there is no statistical palate difference between Pilsner and 2-Row, one would expect an even split between Pilsner and Maris Otter preference as well. And lastly, even the person conducting the experiment commented that a lot of microbreweries could back off of more expensive Maris Otter and go with 2-Row without a majority of their customers ever noticing the change.

 

[jack13]

Based upon Brulosophy experiments I've implemented the following changes already, and there will be more:

1) After reading the experiment wherein testers could not tell the difference between a lager bitter hopped (60 min boil) with Saaz vs. a lager bitter hopped (60 min boil) with Magnum, I have begun bitter hopping with magnum as my 60 min boil bittering addition to save money.

2) After reading the experiment wherein the testers could not tell apart a lager made with Maris Otter from one made with Pilsner malt, I went out and bought a 25 Kg. bag of Pilsner malt to use as my base malt for a broad range of styles.

3) I've cut back on my boil vigor.

In an effort to be scientific, brulosophy of course ensures the tasters are blind. Scientifically this is the correct thing to do, as it elimates the effect of expectation, which can certainly affect a tester's perception.

However, when you serve your beer outside this context, people DO have expectations that affect their perception.

I'd like to see some xbmts where the participants are given some information, like they'd have normally.

The information they'd be given would depend on the situation. But as an example, if I make a czech pils with saaz and one with magnum, I'd like to serve them to people (in a clear glass) and ask "which of these two czech pils do you like better?". It could be the case that people would have an overall preference for one of the czech pils, but those same people, blind to everything except the fact that they were being served beer, would not be able to tell the difference.

Anyway, sure, if given specific information about what they were drinking, some of the differences they perceive would no doubt be 'in their head'. But guess where ALL perception takes place?

Again, brulosophy does the right thing by being scientific, but I'd like to see some of this stuff in addition to, not in place of, what they do.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

In an effort to be scientific, brulosophy of course ensures the tasters are blind. Scientifically this is the correct thing to do, as it elimates the effect of expectation, which can certainly affect a tester's perception.

I'd like to see some xbmts where the participants are given some information, like they'd have normally.

The information they'd be given would depend on the situation. But as an example, if I make a czech pils with saaz and one with magnum, I'd like to serve them to people (in a clear glass) and ask "which of these two czech pils do you like better?". .

I think this would add more depth to the experiments, and I fully agree with casually dropping the style name to the testers in this fashion. This gives them something by which to more carefully detect the odd beer out with respect to the specific style.

The question could also be phrased as: "Which of these better represents the Czech Pilsner style?" This question could be asked after the blind test to only those who detected a difference, and only after they have been asked which they personally prefer.

 

[mulletmaster]

I have been less concerned with filtering all the trub from the fermenter which saves some time on brew day.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I have been less concerned with filtering all the trub from the fermenter which saves some time on brew day.

Thanks! I forgot to include this one. For my past two brewing sessions I have sent all of the trub and commando hop residue straight to the fermenter. My double IPA was delicious, and my Bohemian Pilsner (perhaps the ultimate test, and representing an opposite extreme vs. a double IPA) is still in the fermenter.

 

[jack13]

I have been less concerned with filtering all the trub from the fermenter which saves some time on brew day.

Same here. It not only saves time but also gets you more beer in the end.

 

[kh54s10]

I haven't paid much attention to the experiments. I don't know the source of some of my changes, so unless it is something that has filtered down from a brulosophy experiment, like not using a secondary, I haven't changed anything. I stopped trying to keep trub out of my fermenter because straining it was a PITA. Also that was quite a while before I had even heard of brulosophy.

 

[JONNYROTTEN]

Oh boy...another one of these threads. Lets see how it takes to derail like the other one.

In support of the thread I like reading his exbeeriments. I did the 34/70 warm quick lager that worked out well....if nothing else his exbeeriments have made me worry less about my brewing

 

[jbsg02]

I tried a fast brew day 30 min mash and 30 min boil recently and the beer turned out great. Brew efficiency was even good. I may not do it for every batch but won't hesitate to do it again for certain recipes.

I even took samples up to my LHBS and got their feedback before I let them know it was a 30 min boil, no one detected any off flavors or DMS.

 

[mattdee1]

I see a lot of people trying to rain on the Brulosophy parade by saying the methods are flawed, the results are suspect, blah blah blah.

Even if their results are maybe a degree or two more meaningful than pure anecdotal evidence, that is worth a lot to me, because it is something.

For me, their best value has been to show when long-standing dogma is wrong.

For example, if you're a newcomer to the hobby and you read through forums like HBT trying to get a quick education, you're going to get a false impression about how "certain" some "rules" are in brewing -- like mash temperature effects, sparge factors, and on and on. Brulosophy will take those long-standing claims and test them. Sure, maybe it's only a single and imperfect test, but if the results fail to support a brewing myth, then that has value in my opinion, because it at least shows that the supposed "rules" are not infallible.

 

[hawkbox]

I'm finding myself a lot more willing to try making grain changes depending on what is readily available. I was pretty hesitant to modify a recipe before but it's definitely calmed me down.

Additionally I worry a lot less about the trub, I started to get neurotic about it and now I've backed off to put a bit of effort into reducing it, but not a lot of effort.

 

[Upthewazzu]

I used to filter the trub into the fermentor, I no longer do that. Also, I fine with gelatin, when appropriate to style.

Pretty sure those are the two things I picked up from him.

 

[schematix]

Mods please re-open https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=632633

IMHO moderation is a bit too heavy handed around here.

 

[MaxStout]

My knowledge is drawn from many sources. Brulosophy, HBT discussions, other online sites, and my own experiences. If I change something, I usually have no idea where I got the info from. Unless it's from my own trial-and-error, in which case I remember vividly how I screwed up last time. No doubt, Brulosophy has provided excellent food for thought, and I think it has prompted me to rethink old conventions.

I never saw their 2-row vs pilsner malt test. I might have to brew a 2-row SMaSH ale some time.

 

[SoCal-Doug]

Did Brulosophy change anything that I do? Maybe a few things but nothing major. What it did do was give me more thoughts and concepts to keep in my mental brewing tool bag. More data, more tools, and more knowledge is a great thing for all brewers.

As an engineer and educator, I give the guy mega kudos for his time, efforts and willingness to share information. He doesn't force edicts or brewing scripture down anyone's throat and he is generally careful with his wording and openly willing to entertain comments and alternate opinions and results. Best of all, he likes to ask "why?" and is not afraid to say "let's try to prove it".

Taste, smell and perception is subjective and everyone is different. It doesn't matter if you are a grand poo-bah 400th level beer judge or joe blow off the street. If X number of people can detect the odd-beer-out, and it applies to something you do, try it yourself, ignore it, or take it as gospel. Your choice.

In the end, we will still RDWHAHB

 

[Devon]

I've adopted the quick lager method, and I don't worry too much about the temperature of my sparge water anymore.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

I enjoy reading about Marshall's experiments. I also give him a lot of credit for being as inventive as he is. It is no easy task writing about homebrewing in a way that keeps the subject matter interesting. As for tasting and then rating a beer. That is the most subjective part of brewing I have ever experienced. Even when drinking beer I have brewed, I may love it on Saturday yet find fault with it on Monday, only to really like it on Friday. Go figure.

 

[stpug]

How has Brulosophy changed your brewing habits?

I now read blogs much much less, and when I do I smile and giggle more .

MO vs 2row vs pilsner = HUGE difference between each of them.

 

[Nosybear]

I've participated in some of their taste tests and find they're quite good at administering them. One problem with the suggestion that the testers drop the name of the style: That creates expectations.
I've done an informal test of expectations by dying a pale beer dark and doing a side-by-side tasting, asking my victims only to rate the two beers.
They rated them completely differently. Dropping the name would lead to expectations and expectations are very powerful when it comes to food.
Blind tasting is just that: You don't even know if there is a difference.

As to the original question, I'm not ready to throw out hundreds of years of brewing science based on Brulosophy's tests,
although they do give me something to think about.
I rather like what they're doing although I still chill my lagers throughout the fermentation process. But I have to admit,
I'm less cautious with trub these days....

In an effort to be scientific, brulosophy of course ensures the tasters are blind. Scientifically this is the correct thing to do, as it elimates the effect of expectation, which can certainly affect a tester's perception.

However, when you serve your beer outside this context, people DO have expectations that affect their perception.

I'd like to see some xbmts where the participants are given some information, like they'd have normally.

The information they'd be given would depend on the situation. But as an example, if I make a czech pils with saaz and one with magnum, I'd like to serve them to people (in a clear glass) and ask "which of these two czech pils do you like better?". It could be the case that people would have an overall preference for one of the czech pils, but those same people, blind to everything except the fact that they were being served beer, would not be able to tell the difference.

Anyway, sure, if given specific information about what they were drinking, some of the differences they perceive would no doubt be 'in their head'. But guess where ALL perception takes place?

Again, brulosophy does the right thing by being scientific, but I'd like to see some of this stuff in addition to, not in place of, what they do.

 

[jack13]

I've participated in some of their taste tests and find they're quite good at administering them. One problem with the suggestion that the testers drop the name of the style: That creates expectations.
I've done an informal test of expectations by dying a pale beer dark and doing a side-by-side tasting, asking my victims only to rate the two beers.
They rated them completely differently. Dropping the name would lead to expectations and expectations are very powerful when it comes to food.
Blind tasting is just that: You don't even know if there is a difference.

That's exactly my point, though: Expectations make a big difference, and in real-world beer sampling/drinking, you have expectations. People may prefer hop A over hop B if they are blind to what they are drinking, but prefer hop B if they are drinking what they know to be an IPA.

But I need to acknowledge that my argument, here but especially earlier, is by no means actually my own. I'm just bringing up the age-old dilemma of internal validity (how well you can determine cause/effect, which is in turn based on how well you isolate the variable(s) you're studying) vs. external validity (how well you can generalize to other situations, most notably to the real word). Those are usually opposing notions: As one goes up the other tends to go down, and vice versa.

This is an issue that's been around since humankind started asking 'how' and 'why' questions about nature, so I doubt we knuckleheads will find a satisfying solution to it. Oh, right... [sips homebrew]

 

[d3track]

For me, their best value has been to show when long-standing dogma is wrong.

This is my biggest problem with Brulosophy. It is a single data point, not proof.

People need to experiment on their own. When Marshall first started his blog, I had hopes that is what would happen, but people just took it a new dogma without recreating the study.

 

[Nosybear]

Exactly! I've worked with and chatted with Jake at Brulosophy a few times and we end up at exactly the same point: It's one test.
Without repeatabiity it isn't science. Still it's given me stuff to think about although as I said earlier, I'm not ready to throw out centuries of knowledge,
however empirical, based on one test.

This is my biggest problem with Brulosophy. It is a single data point, not proof.

People need to experiment on their own. When Marshall first started his blog, I had hopes that is what would happen, but people just took it a new dogma without recreating the study.

 

[schematix]

It is a single data point, not proof.

Yep. If there were 1 problem with Brulosophy it's all the people who start quoting his articles as proof.

I think he does a great job for what it is he does; I know i couldn't do any better. But that doesn't mean that he's proving anything.

Some of his stuff has been really really bad. Take it for what it is: entertainment.

 

[d3track]

Exactly! I've worked with and chatted with Jake at Brulosophy a few times and we end up at exactly the same point: It's one test.
Without repeatabiity it isn't science. Still it's given me stuff to think about although as I said earlier, I'm not ready to throw out centuries of knowledge,
however empirical, based on one test.

They do bring up good topics to think about, and try. I came to the realization that my issues are not reeeeaaaally with Brulosophy, but how others interpret what they are doing.

 

[d3track]

Yep. If there were 1 problem with Brulosophy it's all the people who start quoting his articles as proof.

I think he does a great job for what it is he does; I know i couldn't do any better. But that doesn't mean that he's proving anything.

Some of his stuff has been really really bad. Take it for what it is: entertainment.

And listening to Marshall at NHC, I actually felt like his biggest goal was to get others to experiment and lay out how a test can be executed between variables.

 

[schematix]

They do bring up good topics to think about, and try. I came to the realization that my issues are not reeeeaaaally with Brulosophy, but how others interpret what they are doing.

It doesn't help the way they conclude each article with an authoritative, scientific sounding edict. Makes it easy for a lot of people to latch onto it.

 

[Murphys_Law]

I “got brave” and started doing lagers using the quick lager method, and it works (at least for me).

I think my biggest take away though is that beer is forgiving and I don’t stress as much as I once did.

 

[triethylborane]

I see a lot of people trying to rain on the Brulosophy parade by saying the methods are flawed, the results are suspect, blah blah blah.

Even if their results are maybe a degree or two more meaningful than pure anecdotal evidence, that is worth a lot to me, because it is something.

For me, their best value has been to show when long-standing dogma is wrong.

For example, if you're a newcomer to the hobby and you read through forums like HBT trying to get a quick education, you're going to get a false impression about how "certain" some "rules" are in brewing -- like mash temperature effects, sparge factors, and on and on. Brulosophy will take those long-standing claims and test them. Sure, maybe it's only a single and imperfect test, but if the results fail to support a brewing myth, then that has value in my opinion, because it at least shows that the supposed "rules" are not infallible.

Ive read Brulosophy only for the keezer build, but you are not inspiring my confidence in the experiments. Destroying brewing "dogma," "rules" and myths would take more than imperfect experiments. Investigating an experiment isn't "raining on a parade" and parsing through results is an important part of the scientific analysis. This game somewhat reminds me when naturopathic claims are investigated, the claims are iconoclastic yet when subjected to review, naturopaths attack "of course western medicine would want to destroy our claims," yet they purport to do the same to western medicine.

Cue "well its not science like that" or "its not purporting to be like that" or some other sort of response that tries to take the experiments outside the realm of science but yet regard the results as scientific enough. Enough so to destroy brewing "dogma," whatever that is.

 

[ZmannR2]

Lower boil vigor
Shorter boil duration (40-45 mins)
less worried about temp of fermentation (especially with US-05)

 

[ZmannR2]

I “got brave” and started doing lagers using the quick lager method, and it works (at least for me).

I think my biggest take away though is that beer is forgiving and I don’t stress as much as I once did.

Read that too....I wanna try this....so you fermented in the 60's?

 

[Murphys_Law]

Read that too....I wanna try this....so you fermented in the 60's?

No, that’s the “warm ferment” one.

Quick lager is where you ferment ~5 days at 50ish (normal lager temps), raise to 60’s for d-rest for ~5 days, then down to ~32 for a few days.

I will lost a link tomorrow or you can google “quick lager” and it should be the first few items.

 

[eric19312]

There is at least one other currently quite active thread involved in debating meaning and quality of the brulosophy experiments. This thread was supposed to be about their impact on actual home brewers brewing brewing practices. If they have had no impact on you that’s certainly ok. But I don’t get the need to get so defensive about that position.

 

[JohnSand]

I don't think it changed anything. Just made me more comfortable with my relaxed attitude toward brewing.
People have been brewing beer for thousands of years. It doesn't have to be nano-science.

 

[mongoose33]

No, that’s the “warm ferment” one.

Quick lager is where you ferment ~5 days at 50ish (normal lager temps), raise to 60’s for d-rest for ~5 days, then down to ~32 for a few days.

I will lost a link tomorrow or you can google “quick lager” and it should be the first few items.

This is the schedule I use, and it has worked quite well. I've gotten rave reviews on beer brewed with this fermentation schedule.

 

[Murphys_Law]

This is the schedule I use, and it has worked quite well. I've gotten rave reviews on beer brewed with this fermentation schedule.

My wife loves my Pilsner using this so...me for the WIN!

That is really the only competition I’m interested in winning right now.

 

[mongoose33]

What impressed me in the first one was that even though a difference between 2-Row and Maris Otter was easily statistically detected

I don't know that I'd say "easily statistically detected." It was significant. That's about it.

in the end 10 testers who could tell a difference preferred Maris Otter and 10 testers who could tell a difference preferred 2-Row Brewers, so among them it was a dead even split as to preference.

Which to me means it's all personal preference.

So if there is no statistical palate difference between Pilsner and 2-Row, one would expect an even split between Pilsner and Maris Otter preference as well.

If I saw no statistical difference between 2-row and pilsner, I'm not sure it would create any expectations for me as to Pilsner and MO.

Remember, too, that the number of test subjects is very low; I wouldn't draw too many conclusions without seeing this replicated a couple times.

And lastly, even the person conducting the experiment commented that a lot of microbreweries could back off of more expensive Maris Otter and go with 2-Row without a majority of their customers ever noticing the change.

Or maybe half the customers. In the end, if you're going to make 1/2 of your customers less happy no matter which choice you use, then you might as well choose the cheaper.

 

[ericbw]

Is this going to be a continuation of the other thread?

 

[eric19312]

Is this going to be a continuation of the other thread?

hope not