The Impact of Kettle Trub - Part 2 | xBmt Results!

[joshesmusica]

The main reason I worry about trub in the fermenter is to keep the yeast relatively clean for repitiching. If lots of trub gets in the fermenter it's difficult to get a good handle on the level yeast solids in the recovered.

Awesome experiment, though. I'd love to see it done multiple times with the same methodology. Obviously it's a lot of work, but the engineer/scientist/QC guy in me wants more data!

there are a couple of solutions to that problem:
1) make double the starter size that you need, keep 1/2, pitch 1/2.
2) harvest at high krausen (which as i understand is what most breweries do since it's guarantying the healthiest of the yeast at their healthiest time).

i harvest yeast after racking to my bottling bucket, don't worry about the trub or hops or anything. it's not really that much extra work as they settle out better than the dead yeast even.

you could just do the experiment yourself, and then you would get tons of data.

What about leaving beer on trub with a high hop content, such as trub from an IPA? I wonder if direct contact of yeast on a large quantity of hops would have an effect on flavor or yeast health. Any thoughts?

I tend to let a fair bit of wort trub enter my carboys and my beers turn out great, but I'm paranoid about hop material.

you could also just experiment for yourself to figure it out!

 

[JKoravos]

there are a couple of solutions to that problem:
1) make double the starter size that you need, keep 1/2, pitch 1/2.
2) harvest at high krausen (which as i understand is what most breweries do since it's guarantying the healthiest of the yeast at their healthiest time).

Those are two OTHER solutions. Neither of which is all that appealing to me. A double starter for a 10 gallon batch is massive and won't fit in my 4L flask. Harvesting at HK is a good idea but requires another step in my process. Harvesting yeast when transferring adds nominal time to the transfer process, since I'm already setting aside time and getting everything set up/sanitized for the transfer, it's minimal extra effort.

you could just do the experiment yourself, and then you would get tons of data.

I might, but it would be better if Brulosopher did it.

 

[thekraken]

When harvesting from the starter you don't need to double the size of the starter and pitch half. You can use an 'overbuild' calculator to figure the size of your starter + 100 billion cells for harvesting and saving. This is the same amount that your liquid yeast package is supposed start at from the factory. By my calculations, 100 billion cells from my starters are from 0.3 to 0.6 liters, depending on the number of steps it took to build my starter.

http://brulosophy.com/methods/yeast-harvesting/
http://www.homebrewdad.com/yeast_calculator.php

 

[grathan]

Removing ingredients after boiling them together for an hour to see if their is a flavor impact part II. Neat how stupid things fascinate us when it comes to brewing.

 

[thekraken]

Removing ingredients after boiling them together for an hour to see if their is a flavor impact part II. Neat how stupid things fascinate us when it comes to brewing.

ipe:

 

[huckbof]

yeah, nice study!

I'm a bit confused...if you can consistently taste a difference then why do you think the eight people that correctly identified the trub beer are just lucky/good guessers?

If you can consistently and correctly tell the difference over and over then to me there is a difference in the taste. I bet some of the 8 folks that got it right can truly taste a difference.

If 8 people got it right then 10 people said there was a difference between the 2 identical non-trub beers. Clearly these people were incapable tasters that day.
It seems like this is more of a study of how many people in the general population can't taste subtle differences in beer. Kinda explains why my brother-in-law and his friends love the taste of PBR.

I wonder how many of the 8 thought the different beer tasted better or worse?

 

[ZebulonBrewer]

yeah, nice study!

I'm a bit confused...if you can consistently taste a difference then why do you think the eight people that correctly identified the trub beer are just lucky/good guessers?

If you can consistently and correctly tell the difference over and over then to me there is a difference in the taste. I bet some of the 8 folks that got it right can truly taste a difference.

If 8 people got it right then 10 people said there was a difference between the 2 identical non-trub beers. Clearly these people were incapable tasters that day.
It seems like this is more of a study of how many people in the general population can't taste subtle differences in beer. Kinda explains why my brother-in-law and his friends love the taste of PBR.

I wonder how many of the 8 thought the different beer tasted better or worse?

There is of course a chance that his tasters simply couldn't discern the differences because their tastes aren't 'developed enough', but most of the time his tasters are beer geeks, homebrewers, and sometimes BJCP judges. The beauty of the triangle test is that it takes his own bias out of it.

One thing I would like to see for round three (other than the effect of a highly hopped beer on this experiment!) is two batches of beer, where one is dumped completely, and the other is filtered....somehow, via whirlpool, colander, professional filter, or whatever, instead of one giant batch getting the lions share of 11 gallons worth of trub, and one with hardly any.

 

[joshesmusica]

I think the reason why he did one big batch was to make sure it was extreme differences between the two. If that wasn't his motive it was definitely a byproduct.
He does somewhat do the filtering by tilting the kettle. I don't think I fully understand why you want to see two separate batches. When one batch essentially has two batches worth of trub in it, and the other batch is a pretty normal batch without much trub in it at all, it kinda proves the point better, in my opinion.

 

[huckbof]

most of the time his tasters are beer geeks, homebrewers, and sometimes BJCP judges.

Before doing more experiments, I think the tasters should pre-qualified to a certain level otherwise the results are basically watered-down to genpop.
Apparently, equivalent tasters is one of the assumptions of triangle taste testing.

Take the 8 people that got it right and test them again to reduce the guess factor to 1 in 9 and maybe again to take it to 1 in 27 and see how many are left. The ones left standing at the end of 3 rounds should be the future tasters. If nobody is standing after 3 rounds then this beer kicks ass and I would go with the findings. But I would still harbor questions knowing that Brulosopher can taste a difference,

The beauty of the triangle test is that it takes his own bias out of it.

If you want to reduce some of the bias out of the test then IMO you should go double-blind and even brulosopher doesn't know the identity of the samples, allow no interaction between tasters, randomize the numbering and placement of the cups, blindfold the tasters, and not tell the tasters (some of which are home brewers) that this is a trub vs no-trub test.

Some of that stuff along with a qualified tasting panel is what is needed for the crowd on here that likes to submit samples in competition where the tasting panel CAN tell the difference.

I don't really care about competitions. I just know that my go to IPA that I have made 50 times seems to taste different trub vs no-trub, and I somehow choose to waste the last 2 quarts of trub at the bottom of my kettle.

.

 

[biertourist]

An interesting experiment; for what it's worth, here's a fairly recent (2012) article from the Journal of the Institute of Brewing on EXACTLY this subject:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-0416.2006.tb00716.x/pdf


It's CRITICALLY important to keep in mind the actual levels of turbidity / trub that they're talking about, though; "high, medium and low" are not just relative, but absolute measurable quantities. -With most home brew systems when we are careful to get low levels of trub into our fermenters we're probably much closer to large concentrations in the mega scale breweries that these studies are done in.

Having said that, they agree with a lot of your conclusions.
They agree that too clear of wort and eliminating too much trub IS actually a bad thing and particularly in the mega breweries current practices have possibly even gone too far-. -To me a huge take away is that the huge investment in a mash filter not only helps you turn over a lot of beer much faster but it also increases turbidity and that might actually be better for fermentation vs. very low lipid levels coming from lautertuns with long lautering cycles and deep filter beds.

Another statement from the article that I think is VERY applicable to homebrewers is the idea of wort lipid vs. oxygenation trade-offs and that higher level of lipids (particularly long fatty chained lipids) essentially "count" as additional oxygenation. -The yeast can directly take up these lipids rather than having to produce them from oxygen reactions.

-I also liked that the article ranked the long-chain fatty acids in terms of importance to yeast nutrition -anyone else notice that oleic acid is low in that list and listed as only being of minor importance? (This hints that olive oil is NOT a replacement for oxygen although passing more trub to your fermenter, might be.)


The document and your experiment continues to highlight what we already knew; the main points being:

• Too little trub / fatty acids in wort is bad for yeast nutrition
• More trub = faster fermentation
• too much trub is bad for stability / the beer will go stale faster
• More trub = less esters; but more higher fusol alcohols

I think when it comes to practical application, you don't want to transfer all of the trub to your fermenter but buying a trub filter and avoiding all trub is probably taking it too far unless you have a way to ensure your nutrient regime is adding enough fatty acids for yeast nutrition, too (I believe Servomyces yeast nutrient would cover us here).

Its also important to think of trub levels and oxygen levels together as one issue as the long chain fatty acids and oxygen are roughly equivalents here. Think of your "OXYTRUB" level.

If you've got too little esters and "boring" tasting ales consider the impact of trub+oxygen levels -you might want less trub / oxygen.

If you're getting burny, fusoly beers, ESPECIALLY on high gravity beers again think of your "OXYTRUB" levels (you want less trub in this case.) (My old brewery was a very simple 2 bucket electric system and I passed 100% of my trub to my fermenter; I ALWAYS got guesses that the ABV was much higher than it was and high alcohol beers always had some significant burn.)

Many home brewers who have been around a while and really looked at yeast nutrition and handling know the trade offs between pitch rate and oxygen / nutrient levels but it's really pitch rate balanced with Oxygen & Nutrient (Trub / nutrient) --Again, trub is another nutrient.

There's this Oxygen / Trub / Nutrient trifecta that we need to balance to drive the fermentation flavors that we want. (assuming that you've met the basic requirement to not have way too little or way too much trub).

The easiest way I can put it I guess is "Trub == Nutrient" so you really need to think about trub + outside nutrient levels together. Advanced brewers already know that you need to think of oxygen+nutrient together as one item and this just completes the picture.



Adam

 

[ZebulonBrewer]

I think the reason why he did one big batch was to make sure it was extreme differences between the two. If that wasn't his motive it was definitely a byproduct.
He does somewhat do the filtering by tilting the kettle. I don't think I fully understand why you want to see two separate batches. When one batch essentially has two batches worth of trub in it, and the other batch is a pretty normal batch without much trub in it at all, it kinda proves the point better, in my opinion.

I see your point. Having the two extremes should bring out any differences more-so than what I am suggesting. I guess I was looking at it as that one of them is unrealistic, so why do it. Both are good points, but exacerbating the effects of high/low trub is probably the way to go.

 

[biertourist]

I just know that my go to IPA that I have made 50 times seems to taste different trub vs no-trub, and I somehow choose to waste the last 2 quarts of trub at the bottom of my kettle.

.

The study that I linked to covers this angle, too. Reduced IBU levels for hoppy beers when too much trub is passed to the fermenter. -You're not imagining that.

The other studies referenced include double blind tasting results, too.

Adam

 

[Brulosopher]

yeah, nice study!

I'm a bit confused...if you can consistently taste a difference then why do you think the eight people that correctly identified the trub beer are just lucky/good guessers?

If you can consistently and correctly tell the difference over and over then to me there is a difference in the taste. I bet some of the 8 folks that got it right can truly taste a difference.

If 8 people got it right then 10 people said there was a difference between the 2 identical non-trub beers. Clearly these people were incapable tasters that day.
It seems like this is more of a study of how many people in the general population can't taste subtle differences in beer. Kinda explains why my brother-in-law and his friends love the taste of PBR.

I wonder how many of the 8 thought the different beer tasted better or worse?

I'm always very biased... like most people when they think they can taste a difference when they know the variable manipulated.

Before doing more experiments, I think the tasters should pre-qualified to a certain level otherwise the results are basically watered-down to genpop.

Apparently, equivalent tasters is one of the assumptions of triangle taste testing.



Take the 8 people that got it right and test them again to reduce the guess factor to 1 in 9 and maybe again to take it to 1 in 27 and see how many are left. The ones left standing at the end of 3 rounds should be the future tasters. If nobody is standing after 3 rounds then this beer kicks ass and I would go with the findings. But I would still harbor questions knowing that Brulosopher can taste a difference,







If you want to reduce some of the bias out of the test then IMO you should go double-blind and even brulosopher doesn't know the identity of the samples, allow no interaction between tasters, randomize the numbering and placement of the cups, blindfold the tasters, and not tell the tasters (some of which are home brewers) that this is a trub vs no-trub test.



Some of that stuff along with a qualified tasting panel is what is needed for the crowd on here that likes to submit samples in competition where the tasting panel CAN tell the difference.



I don't really care about competitions. I just know that my go to IPA that I have made 50 times seems to taste different trub vs no-trub, and I somehow choose to waste the last 2 quarts of trub at the bottom of my kettle.



.

This is pragmatic homebrew science, the purpose is to test whether the average beer drinker is able to distinguish between beers with a single variable manipulated; my participants are arguably slightly above average tasters. A trained panel would yield much less applicable results, IMO.

 

[grathan]

This is pragmatic homebrew science, the purpose is to test whether the average beer drinker is able to distinguish between beers with a single variable manipulated; my participants are arguably slightly above average tasters. A trained panel would yield much less applicable results, IMO.

It's not very pragmatic if you don't mention oxygenation. As Adam suggested the trub is yeast fuel. If memory serves you oxygenate with shaking which means the trub beer benefiting hugely from the trub.

 

[biertourist]

A trained panel would yield much less applicable results, IMO.

What?!?

I must be misunderstanding / misinterpreting what you're saying because on face value this is complete crazy-talk!

Of course a trained panel yields much better results. Your panel is your measuring "instrument" in this case; a better trained and calibrated panel means a more accurate instrument and a more ACCURATE result.


If the differences in your results are below the taste threshold of your participants, that doesn't mean that there's not a difference.



Having said all that the results from actual calibrated and experience tasting panels, referenced in the study I linked to largely agree with you when it comes to a certain level on fresh beers. -On aged beers the results seem to flip.

The other major issue here is that when people jump to major conclusions as a result: "trub doesn't matter, just pass it all" -they're going to reach a point at which it DOES matter. It also matters more on high gravity / ABV beers and when in other fermentation conditions that also produce higher levels of fusol alcohols.

-Brewing a high gravity all grain beer and pitch a high gravity belgian strain, over oxygenate with an oxygen stone, add too much yeast nutrient and ferment a bit on the high side and you'll have a fusol alcohol mess. High trub levels would be one of the things helping to drive that fusol alcohol production.

Everything in balance.



Higher trub levels / fatty acid levels DO increase fusol alcohol production and DO decrease ester production; that's not really in question, what's in question is whether in the conditions that you brewed your beers in whether it really made a noticable "difference" and whether additional process, time or equipment is "worth it" to reduce the trub.

The answer that we get from the result of the experiment is that "it depends" and high trub levels driving up fusol alcohol production and down ester production might not be a big deal and wasn't in the conditions of the experiment. -When people jump to the conclusion that "trub creating problems downstream in my beer isn't an issue": that's when we have bad science and bad practice and we create new home brewing myths that take us back a step.

-Very similar to the huge leaps people have made with Hot Side Aeration: "HSA doesn't exist; it's a myth; feel free to do dumb things that maximize wort oxygenation -nothing bad will happen". -HSA exists, just like increased fusol alcohol production and increased rate of beer staling when high trub levels exist, it's just that it isn't an issue to be over concerned with under normal practices and for typical beers. (You go overboard because you believe it to be a "myth" and the problem comes back with a vengeance.)


A great experiment, I'm glad you did it. As long as people understand the constraints and don't leap to grossly exaggerated conclusions, they'll be fine.

Unfortunately there's already a "holy war" with people picking sides of this argument looking for further justification to their very black and white view of the issue.



Adam

 

[JKoravos]

What?!?

I must be misunderstanding / misinterpreting what you're saying because on face value this is complete crazy-talk!

I interpreted the comment meaning that 99.9% of beer drinkers aren't trained tasters so the results would only be truly applicable to 0.1% of beer drinkers. He'd rather have more a "average" test panel that leads to results that are more in line with the average homebrewer/beer drinker.

It's a matter of what you're going for. If you want to determine if these changes are of consequence to your average brewer, use "average brewers" as the panel. If you wan to know if there's ANY effect perceptible to the drinker, use a trained panel. Or, save everyone some time and just send it to the lab for analysis.

 

[biertourist]

I interpreted the comment meaning that 99.9% of beer drinkers aren't trained tasters so the results would only be truly applicable to 0.1% of beer drinkers. He'd rather have more a "average" test panel that leads to results that are more in line with the average homebrewer/beer drinker.

It's a matter of what you're going for. If you want to determine if these changes are of consequence to your average brewer, use "average brewers" as the panel. If you wan to know if there's ANY effect perceptible to the drinker, use a trained panel. Or, save everyone some time and just send it to the lab for analysis.

Depends how you tout the results and whether those observing the results understand the constraints.

The impact for that beer wasn't noticed.

More trub, a higher fermentation temp, higher gravity / ABV beer, more oxygenation more nutrients -all / any of those things also ramp up fusol alcohol production and restrain esters.

All that's been proven is that within the constrains of the experiment, for which there are many, high trub levels didn't make an appreciable difference.



As long as no one takes the results and jumps to wide conclusions such as "Trub having a negative effect on your beer / driving up fusol alcohol production and down ester production is a MYTH!", we're good.

-I'd be pretty surprised if that hasn't already happened, though.

Adam

 

[masaba]

Depends how you tout the results and whether those observing the results understand the constraints.

The impact for that beer wasn't noticed.

More trub, a higher fermentation temp, higher gravity / ABV beer, more oxygenation more nutrients -all / any of those things also ramp up fusol alcohol production and restrain esters.

All that's been proven is that within the constrains of the experiment, for which there are many, high trub levels didn't make an appreciable difference.



As long as no one takes the results and jumps to wide conclusions such as "Trub having a negative effect on your beer / driving up fusol alcohol production and down ester production is a MYTH!", we're good.

-I'd be pretty surprised if that hasn't already happened, though.

Adam

I would say that all too often I see on these forums folks who take things to the other extreme by saying things like you must do X to make good beer (remove all kettle trub, aerate with pure O2, pitch cold, etc.), when in fact great beer can be made in a variety of ways. From everything I have read on Brulosopher's site he states very well the set-up and doesn't make overly broad claims. I think he is actually breaking down some of the you must do X type myths, personally.

 

[biertourist]

I would say that all too often I see on these forums folks who take things to the other extreme by saying things like you must do X to make good beer (remove all kettle trub, aerate with pure O2, pitch cold, etc.), when in fact great beer can be made in a variety of ways. From everything I have read on Brulosopher's site he states very well the set-up and doesn't make overly broad claims. I think he is actually breaking down some of the you must do X type myths, personally.

I see quite a bit of both and normally it's about the author just trying to support what they've purchased / what they do currently.

-If they remove all trub or recently purchased a trub filter, then they of course insist that you can't brew good beer unless you've removed all trub. If they've got a system and process that passes a ton of trub then of course trub doesn't make a bit of difference.

Bought an oxygen setup? -Then "you can't make good lagers / high ABV beers without one"; aerate and have no desire to buy an oxygen setup then of course you can make great lager and high abv beers without pure oxygen; don't "waste your money".

Switched to plastic fermenters after a horrific glass carboy accident? -Plastic makes great beer and glass is a waste of money and dangerous. Switched from plastic to glass after a scratched fermenter infection? -Plastic results in off flavors, infection and oxidation and plastic is "EWW".

I agree you can make a great, high 30s scoring beer in a variety of ways; when you want to move from high 30s to mid 40s, then all of a sudden all the various shades of gray on each of these little issues start to matter and there's lots of edge case beers and styles where those things matter again.

Adam

 

[JKoravos]

Depends how you tout the results and whether those observing the results understand the constraints.

The impact for that beer wasn't noticed.

More trub, a higher fermentation temp, higher gravity / ABV beer, more oxygenation more nutrients -all / any of those things also ramp up fusol alcohol production and restrain esters.

All that's been proven is that within the constrains of the experiment, for which there are many, high trub levels didn't make an appreciable difference.

As long as no one takes the results and jumps to wide conclusions such as "Trub having a negative effect on your beer / driving up fusol alcohol production and down ester production is a MYTH!", we're good.

-I'd be pretty surprised if that hasn't already happened, though.

Adam

I'm in 100% agreement with you. The unfortunate part of these things is that people take a nice little piece of data and apply it across all possible scenarios. It's an inevitable side effect of feeding information to people who don't understand the complexity of the system.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't share these kind of things, just that you need to be prepared for the fallout.

 

[huckbof]

I'm always very biased... like most people when they think they can taste a difference when they know the variable manipulated.

yeah, I agree that is why I wouldn't tell the tasters what variables were manipulated, just ask them to pick the beer that is different

from http://brulosophy.com/2015/03/22/the-impact-of-kettle-trub-part-2-exbeeriment-results/

"the no-trub beer had what I can only describe as a subtle plastic aroma and flavor"

so are you saying that the plastic taste/aroma is not there?

 

[ultravista]

Subscribing.

 

[Brulosopher]

I see quite a bit of both and normally it's about the author just trying to support what they've purchased / what they do currently.

-If they remove all trub or recently purchased a trub filter, then they of course insist that you can't brew good beer unless you've removed all trub. If they've got a system and process that passes a ton of trub then of course trub doesn't make a bit of difference.

Bought an oxygen setup? -Then "you can't make good lagers / high ABV beers without one"; aerate and have no desire to buy an oxygen setup then of course you can make great lager and high abv beers without pure oxygen; don't "waste your money".

Switched to plastic fermenters after a horrific glass carboy accident? -Plastic makes great beer and glass is a waste of money and dangerous. Switched from plastic to glass after a scratched fermenter infection? -Plastic results in off flavors, infection and oxidation and plastic is "EWW".

I agree you can make a great, high 30s scoring beer in a variety of ways; when you want to move from high 30s to mid 40s, then all of a sudden all the various shades of gray on each of these little issues start to matter and there's lots of edge case beers and styles where those things matter again.

Adam

This is so accurate. Confirmation bias runs rampant in this hobby.

 

[dfhar]

I agree you can make a great, high 30s scoring beer in a variety of ways; when you want to move from high 30s to mid 40s, then all of a sudden all the various shades of gray on each of these little issues start to matter and there's lots of edge case beers and styles where those things matter again.

This is the elephant in the room.

A lot of the disagreement that takes place in discussions like this is due to the fact that the statement "issue X doesn't matter" means completely different things to the people who are trying to brew high 30's beers (brewed to style with no flaws) vs. the people who are trying to brew mid 40's beers (truly world-class example of style; one sip makes you say "Wow!"). Unfortunately, nobody identifies which camp they're in when entering the discussion.

At the very least I am convinced, not only by Brulosopher's (and others) experiments, but also via my own experience (I haven't tasted Brulosopher's beer), that it is possible to consistently brew a mid to high 30's quality beer of moderate gravity that will be consumed within a month or two by simply dumping the contents of the kettle, trub and all, into the fermenter.

I still haven't cracked the secret of consistently brewing a mid 40's quality German or Czech lager (or any beer for that matter), so for me the jury is still out on that one.

 

[passedpawn]

[moved to blogs and bloggers]

 

[JKoravos]

This is the elephant in the room.

A lot of the disagreement that takes place in discussions like this is due to the fact that the statement "issue X doesn't matter" means completely different things to the people who are trying to brew high 30's beers (brewed to style with no flaws) vs. the people who are trying to brew mid 40's beers (truly world-class example of style; one sip makes you say "Wow!"). Unfortunately, nobody identifies which camp they're in when entering the discussion.

At the very least I am convinced, not only by Brulosopher's (and others) experiments, but also via my own experience (I haven't tasted Brulosopher's beer), that it is possible to consistently brew a mid to high 30's quality beer of moderate gravity that will be consumed within a month or two by simply dumping the contents of the kettle, trub and all, into the fermenter.

I still haven't cracked the secret of consistently brewing a mid 40's quality German or Czech lager (or any beer for that matter), so for me the jury is still out on that one.

That's the thing. I don't think it's very hard to make really drinkable beer. I think most brewers are perfectly happy with that. For those looking to make absolutely exceptional beer these fine issues start to matter. I think most homebrewers are shortcutting in so many areas that a single variable, like trub content, is probably masked by 10 other things they are doing. Lack of oxygenation, inconsistent pitching rates, marginal fermentation temp control, lack of/no mash pH control, water chemistry, old hops/ingredients and the list goes on.

This isn't commentary on this particular experiment, just homebrewing technical discourse in general.

 

[8rnw8]

I enjoyed both experiments immensely. 3.5 hops however, is about 1/3 to 1/4 the amount I use in one of my ipa's.



I would love to see this experiment performed with a recipe utilizing close to 8+ ounces of hops.



I also have to wonder if there isn't a huge difference between transferring over hop trub that had been boiled for 60 minutes, vs transferring over trub from flameout or whirlpool additions.

 

[JKoravos]

It would be far more streamlined and fruitful for the community if these threads could stay in the brew science forum. This is a brew science discussion, lets have it in the appropriate forum, eh?

 

[Brulosopher]

It would be far more streamlined and fruitful for the community if these threads could stay in the brew science forum. This is a brew science discussion, lets have it in the appropriate forum, eh?

I agree, but I was privately asked to post only to the Blogs & Bloggers forum... posted new results there yesterday and I'm pretty sure it went unseen :/

 

[JKoravos]

I agree, but I was privately asked to post only to the Blogs & Bloggers forum... posted new results there yesterday and I'm pretty sure it went unseen :/

I figured as much.