ChessRockwell
Well-Known Member
That's not exactly true.
People over and over again, based on their own experiences (including side by side tests) saying that they could tell no difference either way isn't evidence to the contrary?
That's not exactly true.
What I find most interesting is that YOU'RE doing exactly this.
People over and over again, based on their own experiences (including side by side tests) saying that they could tell no difference either way isn't evidence to the contrary?
Like we've said before, it may be evidence that pitch rate isn't as significant a variable as some people think it is, but it says nothing about a potential drop in cell count due to pitching dry.
Beer tasting will always be subjecting (and non-scientific), and we can (and do) debate that all day. Whether or not rehydrating affects the flavor of your beer is something we can debate. Whether or not rehydrating affects active cell count isn't something we can debate.
Like we've said before, it may be evidence that pitch rate isn't as significant a variable as some people think it is, but it says nothing about a potential drop in cell count due to pitching dry.
Beer tasting will always be subjecting (and non-scientific), and we can (and do) debate that all day. Whether or not rehydrating affects the flavor of your beer is something we can debate. Whether or not rehydrating affects active cell count isn't something we can debate.
Trokair said:Well said. The actual question here is to what degree the science affects the taste, not if the science is in question. Personally I go out of my way to do everything possible to make my brews the best they can be. After all, I am the one drinking them. That being said I could probably spend less time and cut some things out of my process and make a beer that I couldn't tell didn't have the 105% effort in them. I just don't see the reason to chance it. Plus I enjoy brewing so all of the little stuff is fun to me.
hello.
never rehydrate when making wine. And I made wine a lot longer than I've made beer.
I won't call you old-fashioned, I will call you wasteful, inefficient and paranoid. Starsan doesn't need to be rinsed, doing so makes it pointless to even use the product. Since it's just a weak acid, there's nothing bad that happens if a bit (or more than a bit) of Starsan gets mixed with your beer. It dilutes out to phosphate which the yeast will happily eat...
If you don't "believe" the basic science behind that, then I don't know what to say.
Dougie63 said:For a "weak Acid" sure can shine the crap out of copper in a dilluted state..........
Please don't let this thread die. It's a perverse pleasure, but I'm hooked. I can't wait for the next episode.
What the hell. I'll start it for the OPer again: "Nottingham yeast - hydrate or not ?"![]()
Hydrate with Star San![]()
Right! We're not going to let our yeast debate be settled by silly things like "science"!
Remember "Science" now accepts the big bang theory. 20 years ago, they would have laughed in your face.science changes all the time
![]()
That's right. If you want absolute and final answers you'd better turn to the only place you can get them. But God isn't talking about reydrating Notty, to my knowledge. So it's tea leaves or science. I'm sticking with science.
grimzella said:Remember "Science" now accepts the big bang theory. 20 years ago, they would have laughed in your face.science changes all the time
![]()
Unicellular reproduction is a bit easier to study and experiment with than purely theoretical universal origin astrophysics. So I would say this is a poor analogy, to put it mildly.
This is a basic, well established concept that isn't up for debate. It's mind boggling how difficult it is for some people to accept it.
Huh? What's the big argument? The mfg. instructs to rehydrate. Seems pretty clear cut, eh?