How much does Brulosopher affect your brewing?

[SanPancho]

what i can tell you is that marshall is a good guy, family guy, has a hobby he's turned into a business. good for him. havent met the other contributors so cant say anything there.

are his sample sizes small? yes. sometimes so small to be pointless--which he admits.
are some of the experiements not necessarily groundbreaking or enlightening? yes. when you've got deadlines sometimes you gotta publish just to publish.

but i will say that he is upfront about all this stuff. im not a regular reader, but i've looked up a few writeups. from what i've seen he always includes his "personal take" on them and is good about admitting the limits of the experiment. so if you're taking this stuff as gospel truth, well .... that's your fault. and he makes those very disclaimers so you cant really blame him.

to me its just some guys who are really serious about the hobby and try to emulate scientific method. by using the method and some statistics they can show a bit more seriousness than your typical posting that "everyone at the party liked the first beer better."

i think whats more important is that they do it in order to test and debunk the "rules" of homebrewing, which i think is a good thing. on a personal note, we brewed 3 week lagers well before it became publicized. nobody believed us. the blog made it a well-known thing. that's the internet for you. it facilitates exchange of information.

if the blog encourages more people to drop the orthodoxy and just let the creative juices flow, then great. lets get creative. they dont claim to be rivaling the beer science of VFB, uc davis, oregon state, etc. so we can argue about sample size, tester populations, etc until the cows come home. the big picture is that by busting some of these myths, or proving them true, the blog should encourage/help people to make better beer.

which is good for all of us.

 

[enkamania]

I use the vitality starter.

Coors England developed an amazing method that is perfect for homebrewers to steal. Take a stir plate and make a starter. Add yeast and 10˚P [1.040 SG]. Aerate for 4 hours. At the end of 4 hours pitch into the wort. Do not aerate the batch. This maximizes “vitality.”

 

[JKaranka]

I usually skip almost the entire article and go straight to the tester's opinion. (i skip most of the process, the triangle test stuff etc.)
This made me much more laidback about stuff like mashing and simplified my brewdays. Water treatments made my brewday complicated enough anyways. (boil softening, ph measurements etc.)

The water chemistry experiments actually tended to be significant. So between getting some trub in the fv and forgetting to add a couple grams of gypsum it's the second one that is more likely to be noticeable.

 

[PeteNMA]

Well, you're welcome to believe whatever you wish.

Oddly, everybody seems to want to focus on the statistics; almost nobody is talking about the representativeness of the sample, which probably deserves more attention.

This is exactly what I said. Good statistical results are driven by representative sampling, you only need enough samples to get a good signal to noise ratio. Belief doesn't enter in to it.

The population is obviously everyone who drinks beer. I agree that the sample is folks who are geographically convenient but that doesn't make the results invalid, and is bolstered by an apparent spread between trained and untrained tasters.

Also the meta-analysis showed that there are no significant differences which can be pulled out between the trained and untrained tasters, suggesting again that the triangle test methodology does a good job at removing a potential variable from the experimental plan.

What I'm more interested in and especially now that there are multiple contributors are the variables in the processes which are not discussed but are in some state of control. The real challenge with brewing is that it is a process with lots of sequential steps which can counteract each other.

As I mentioned I've tried to repeat a couple of the experiments myself with different results, particularly mash times and have found that when served blind I can reliably distinguish beers mashed for 30 and 60 minutes. Post hoc FG testing also showed differences between which at least gives one differing metric in my beers.

I absolutely believe Marshalls results, but as he says take them as guidance, not gospel truth

 

[broadbill]

Jesus.
Way to make this personal with insults.
Real nice.

My name isn't Jesus.
What I expressed was my opinion and not a personal insult. But if the shoe fits...
Thank you, I thought it was nice opinion which is why I shared it.

 

[broadbill]

1. That is not how research works. They are trying to frame what they do as research - therefore, it gets critiqued. Sorry/not sorry.

2. You are right, the brewers on that site publish their findings without peer review. That then means that the readers have to self-filter out the good stuff from the irrelevant.

You missed the part where I said it wasn't research, so we agree. Sorry/not sorry?

 

[ChelisHubby]

I use the vitality starter.

Coors England developed an amazing method that is perfect for homebrewers to steal. Take a stir plate and make a starter. Add yeast and 10˚P [1.040 SG]. Aerate for 4 hours. At the end of 4 hours pitch into the wort. Do not aerate the batch. This maximizes “vitality.”

I am assuming you are just pumping air and not oxygen ?

 

[joshesmusica]

I use the vitality starter.

Coors England developed an amazing method that is perfect for homebrewers to steal. Take a stir plate and make a starter. Add yeast and 10˚P [1.040 SG]. Aerate for 4 hours. At the end of 4 hours pitch into the wort. Do not aerate the batch. This maximizes “vitality.”

I don't see why you wouldn't still want to aerate the wort. It's only gonna help. The yeast will uptake all of the oxygen within the first 15 minutes or so of being pitched anyways, and the more oxygen for them, the better (up to a point, but not a point that you'll reach by just aerating the wort).

 

[mongoose33]

This is exactly what I said. Good statistical results are driven by representative sampling, you only need enough samples to get a good signal to noise ratio. Belief doesn't enter in to it.

?? I was pointing out that your interpretation of this is your belief, i.e., my original point that sample size is relatively inconsequential, and you're welcome, given that we allow all sorts of whackadoodle stuff to be posted here, to believe whatever you like. Even if it's not true. To wit:

The population is obviously everyone who drinks beer. I agree that the sample is folks who are geographically convenient but that doesn't make the results invalid, and is bolstered by an apparent spread between trained and untrained tasters.

Really? Is that what you want to be, or what it is? He has samples composed primarily of homebrewers and beer judges. Are they representative of the entire beer-drinking population? No. Ergo, he has a sample of something, but what it is we don't really know.

Also the meta-analysis showed that there are no significant differences which can be pulled out between the trained and untrained tasters, suggesting again that the triangle test methodology does a good job at removing a potential variable from the experimental plan.

Forgive me, but I missed the meta-analysis--and I'm having trouble understanding how one could be done given that the exbeeriments use different methods and ingredients. Do you have a link?

 

[m00ps]

My xbeermnt:
ho: you people can be satiated and be grateful for the unsolicited "suggestion" concerning whatever technique(s)/method(s) this xbeerment will provide you
h1:

 

[jekeane]

His trub experiment was insightful. The quick lagering method made two filthy beers.

 

[joshesmusica]

His trub experiment was insightful. The quick lagering method made two filthy beers.

Likely because he has strict control over every other variable. It's why these experiments work for him. It's why the quick lager method works for him and other very experienced brewers.

You need a good recipe. Great sanitation. Great fermentation temperature control. The proper amount of vital, viable yeast (if dry, then properly rehydrated). A good cold crash with gelatin. Also, on that method now he also mentions things that have been reported that they have worked for others as "alternate options." Don't go by those, specifically the ramp up at once part, and the ramp down at once part. But I do suggest going by his new, "better-safe-than-sorry recommendations" as far as when to check the SG.

The method can and does work for those that keg and those that bottle. It's all about getting the fermentation right. Keep at it, and I'm sure you'll get it.

 

[jekeane]

I have control over all those elements as well and followed his methods exactly. I just don't believe many of his methods are compatible with many of the different yeast strains available.

 

[joshesmusica]

I have control over all those elements as well and followed his methods exactly. I just don't believe many of his methods are compatible with many of the different yeast strains available.

Which strains did you use in the two batches?

 

[Jimbodaman]

I no longer worry about trub... at all, I will bottle trub all it requires is a few more weeks to settle and gentler handling and the beer tastes the same.

 

[thefost]

Great thread! Glad I found it - full disclosure I'm one of the Brulosophy contributors.

I have control over all those elements as well and followed his methods exactly. I just don't believe many of his methods are compatible with many of the different yeast strains available.

Which yeast strain did you use that resulted in bad beer with the quick lager method?

 

[thefost]

Forgive me, but I missed the meta-analysis--and I'm having trouble understanding how one could be done given that the exbeeriments use different methods and ingredients. Do you have a link?

http://brulosophy.com/2016/01/21/in...t-xbmt-performance-based-on-experience-level/

 

[thefost]

As I mentioned I've tried to repeat a couple of the experiments myself with different results, particularly mash times and have found that when served blind I can reliably distinguish beers mashed for 30 and 60 minutes. Post hoc FG testing also showed differences between which at least gives one differing metric in my beers.

I think you're referring to this xBmt - http://brulosophy.com/2014/09/01/does-mash-length-matter-exbeeriment-results/

Unfortunately this was before Marshall started triangle testing so there isn't a way to establish statistical significance. It's definitely one we need to repeat a few times though.

 

[MattyIce]

I figured this thread would take a jog or two in the direction of his statistical analysis. Even if you only take his results as anecdotal, I have found value in that he is doing experiments I wish I had the time to conduct. Sometimes we as a community take ourselves a little too seriously.

 

[Kampenken]

Problem with long posts, no totals! These quotes from the first page and the previous quote summarize my thoughts nicely. I do like reading through his site.

He hasn't changed anything for me really. I look at his sentence saying he is just one guy and it isn't representative of everything. He will admit one experiment isn't really enough to use as a new standard however I'll admit his experiments are interesting....

ANd...

... I haven't changed anything in my process because of his experiments. I find them interesting for sure, but as he says, it's 1 data point, and I'm not as confident in the consistency of his process to say he's isolating variables enough to make a difference, nor do I necessarily trust his method of evaluation... until they can be replicated on large scale by everyone, I will typically continue to side with established brewing science (where the methods are much more rigorous and the testing much more exhaustive) until I'm sufficiently convinced otherwise.

And...

...In addition to what others have said, though, despite the fact that he does claim to be only one data point, it bothers me a bit that he presents his results couched in the language of statistical significance, i.e., 95% confidence intervals and .05 p-values. When your n = 13 people answering a survey about largely subjective impressions, that sort of quantitative analysis is a bit ridiculous. Moreover, talking about them in those terms comes off as self-indulgent (at least to me), and suggests the results are meant to be taken as more conclusive than they should be.

And the most recent...

I figured this thread would take a jog or two in the direction of his statistical analysis. Even if you only take his results as anecdotal, I have found value in that he is doing experiments I wish I had the time to conduct. Sometimes we as a community take ourselves a little too seriously.

So all in, I enjoy reading the site, however, I don't run off with a new approach, nor does it effect my brewing. There's too many variables, no real repetition to be truly scientific. I think he realizes this as well. I hope he continues for a long time, I may be swayed, or not, but I will enjoy the reading. Brew on Bulosopher and contributers, brew on!

 

[enkamania]

I don't see why you wouldn't still want to aerate the wort. It's only gonna help. The yeast will uptake all of the oxygen within the first 15 minutes or so of being pitched anyways, and the more oxygen for them, the better (up to a point, but not a point that you'll reach by just aerating the wort).

I haven't seen a difference, one less thing to do.

 

[mongoose33]

Originally Posted by mongoose33

Forgive me, but I missed the meta-analysis--and I'm having trouble understanding how one could be done given that the exbeeriments use different methods and ingredients. Do you have a link?

http://brulosophy.com/2016/01/21/in...t-xbmt-performance-based-on-experience-level/

Thank you. Not bad. I think he is on the right track with his interpretation, i.e., judges are just trained to describe what they're experiencing better, but they're no better at distinguishing between brews.

It quiets some of my concerns--not that they were "significant" but they represented an alternative explanation--about what population he was generalizing to, if any.

Makes me want to get all that data and play with it. But I probably won't have the time--I have a keezer to build.

 

[bassclefbrewing]

His octoberfest recipe is AWESOME btw...its a perennial favorite among my friends

 

[tooldudetool]

I think the Brulosophy website is great! Once I found it I spent the next week reading through all the xbmts. It has inspired me to try and brew my first lager after 5 years of brewing ales (I haven't done it yet, but its the next brew up). I see the results of the xbmts as being additional tools in my brewing toolbox. Have to brew on the fly with liquid yeast, but didn't make a starter? Use a vitality starter! Mash temp came out a few degrees to low or high? Probably won't make a discernible difference so don't worry about it! The way I see it, the brulosopher is doing the experiments we all wish we had the time to try ourselves and he's doing the best job possible to document the results. I certainly couldn't find a regular group of 15-20 people to get results from on a weekly basis, so I really appreciate that he can! I do agree that the reason so many of the xbmts come out with no statistical difference on the variable being tested is that the rest of his brewing process is so sound and consistent. I think the fermentation temperature schedule may have a lot to do with it. I suspect that ramping up the temp after the first couple days while the yeast is still so active may do a lot towards cleaning up any flavor issues caused by the variable being tested. Also his ability to chill the wort so quickly with his badass immersion chiller may also be a contributing factor. That being said, he does a good job of documenting his brewing process, which would allow anyone at home to copy it exactly. Brew on Brulosopher!!

 

[JGF]

Read through the 15 pages and commenting late because I've been away from site for a week or so. Lots of good stuff and interesting ideas in the thread. Maybe rehashing a few things that have been said already...

For me, I've used the experiments in two different ways.

First, it's helped to tell us (I brew with my dad...more on that in point 2) about what details are important to sweat and which are not. We worry about water chemistry and recipes more than some other details. I firmly believe that water chemistry is pretty important to get somewhat close with. Our municipal water is exceedingly hard so we make RO water and mix with either our water or with salts and other things to get it to something closer to a water profile for a style. We don't go nuts here, just try to get it close.

Second, we've brewed on and off for a long time (20 years) and can get pretty stuck in our ways. It's been useful to realize that a lot of things that we do probably don't have much impact on the finished product. I've found the Exbeeriments to be useful in changing some of our (read my dad's) old ways. For example, secondary fermentation isn't really needed despite having done it for a long time. He still likes the idea and is retired so we often does it when he's in charge of a brew. I don't bother.

That said, we still do a few things that "don't matter" like use oxygen to aerate, make a starter, etc. So we're by now means diehard about sticking to their findings.

While not something we've really changed, the third big idea I've taken from the Exbeeriments is that taste, preferences, and differences among beers are pretty highly subjective. Some people are able to taste some off-flavors very well but are poor at sensing others. Tasting is very subjective. I know that there are beers that I've really liked or disliked one time only to try under different conditions and have a different experience. Maybe it's my mood, or what I've eaten or drunk prior, or who knows?

Brew what you enjoy and have fun with it. Don't sweat the small stuff.

 

[30_Ounce]

Interesting that these guys could reliably pick the different sample when they knew the nature of the experiment but the Brewer, Greg, could not even though he could taste a definite difference in the candi syrups.

http://brulosophy.com/2016/03/14/be...vs-commercial-exbeeriment-results/#more-52437

 

[Peruvian802]

Given the disclaimer that each exBeerament is a one time sample, I'd like to see some of them repeated to see if he gets the same results.

 

[MapleGroveAleworks]

No effect on my brewing really.

 

[303Dan]

For me, personally, some of his site has been very useful but for some of it, I don't think I am the target audience.

For example, the article on yeast harvesting was brilliantly simple to me. I had never thought of doing it that way before, and that is how I do it all the time now.

When I was first starting to consider using gelatin as a fining in some styles, his xBmt results gave me the confirmation I needed to try it.

But most of the xBmts are very hit-or-miss for me. I'm just the type of brewer that WANTS to sweat the details. I enjoy the process, regardless of how tedious or time consuming it may be, and I will gladly add to my process even if I think the difference it will make to my beer is very small or maybe even imperceptible to most people. And likewise, I have no real desire to eliminate steps from my process even if the difference in quality of my beer would go down such a small amount that people couldn't pick it out in a triangle test. I think really, it's that I want to believe that all the effort I'm putting in is making a difference, even if most people that drink my beer couldn't tell.

But I completely understand that many others look for ways to streamline their process and/or shorten their brew day for a number of different reasons, all of which are valid. I would never argue that someone shouldn't look for steps that could be removed or time that could be saved. It all just depends on what you enjoy about brewing and what your goals are. So for that audience, which is probably pretty large, I think his site does a great job of presenting valuable information in a manner that's easy to consume and understand.