What are your contrarian/"unpopular" beer opinions?

BrewSwag 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Hops - for IPAs/APAs, use any bittering variety to get to the IBU level you want at 60 and add flavor/aroma at 5.

I no longer use a starter unless I'm brewing something over about 7.5%. Pitch right from the pack and no problems.

No aeration - when my wort chills to the temp I want, yeast goes in and the lid goes on.

Sanitation - the more I brew, the less concerned I am. As long as the fermenter has been thoroughly soaked with StarSan. Bottles - I rinse with water, soak a few minutes in PBW before taking a bottle brush to them, and then let them sit in StarSan for a few minutes. Never had a problem.
 
I haven't been a regular on the forums for a while, but I thought I was reasonably up to date on the latest trends, but the LODO thing on this thread threw me for a loop. I had to google it.
First impression - it seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through. In the absence of some scientific (as opposed to anecdotal) evidence that there's a significant difference in the finished product, I can't imagine incorporating it into my homebrewing process.
I would like to see something like the blind triangle tests done by the Brulosophy folks. Just a guess, but I would predict results in the non-significant range.
Just think of the best non-LoDO beer, commercial or homebrewed, that you've ever had. Is it really possible that LoDO could produce beer that's so much better that it would be worth the hassle?
 
MagicRat said:
I haven't been a regular on the forums for a while, but I thought I was reasonably up to date on the latest trends, but the LODO thing on this thread threw me for a loop. I had to google it.
First impression - it seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through. In the absence of some scientific (as opposed to anecdotal) evidence that there's a significant difference in the finished product, I can't imagine incorporating it into my homebrewing process.
I would like to see something like the blind triangle tests done by the Brulosophy folks. Just a guess, but I would predict results in the non-significant range.
Just think of the best non-LoDO beer, commercial or homebrewed, that you've ever had. Is it really possible that LoDO could produce beer that's so much better that it would be worth the hassle?
Click to expand...

When I first started brewing, an experience brewer told me,
"The great thing about home brewing is that you can get into the science and theory and be as geeky as you want, or keep it as simple as you want."

He was certainly correct. (I like to keep things pretty simple, BTW)

:mug:
 
Cavpilot2000 said:
I'll call your umbrage and raise you a high dudgeon, sir!

I know, I know, to each his own, but I've tried several and only found one I would bother to reach for if presented a selection of both sour and non-sour beers. It's called Jetty from Castle Island Brewing in MA.
And I could do a Berlinerweiss on a hot day but I'd probably rather reach for a Pils or Helles.

But to each his own.

Disclaimer: No hipsters were harmed in the writing of this post.
Okay, maybe their feelings, but no actual injury was inflicted...
Click to expand...

Trigger warning, give them a safe space! You know how easily their feelings get hurt...
 
JediJoel said:
My contrarian beer opinion is that everything needs be aged in oak, including brewers. It helps the brewers mellow out and gives them a nice smokey, woody aroma. :D
Click to expand...

Yeah A well aged Smokey with Oak Leaf Clusters won't even be noticed by brewers but the distillers will sure recognize them.
 
Cavpilot2000 said:
Contrarian opinion:
Unless your base water has an unusual pH, you really don't need to worry about controlling mash pH.

Here's why:
Your grains should get you in the right ballpark all by themselves.
For those of you who check your pH every time, how often do you actually have to adjust it? My guess is not that often (again, unless your brew water has an unusual pH).

And if your pH is outside the optimal range by a point or two, the only thing you'll lose is a small his on enzymatic efficiency, which in the grand scheme of things won't throw your beer off by a noticeable amount.

Caveat: if you are using other additives that will change your pH, like SMB, you should monitor it because you are artificially modifying your water's natural pH.
Click to expand...

It seems that ph of your water matters less than residual alkalinity. my water is a fairly neutral ph of 8, but the alkalinity is high enough (170 or so) that light beers come out unacceptably tannic and harsh without adjustment, and I have found that even dark beers benefit significantly from acidification of sparge water.

I don't know how that alkalinity compares on the average scale of tapwater, but the difference between adjusted water and non-adjusted is night and day. In an esb or pale ale, it's the difference between delicious and undrinkable. In a darker beer it's the difference between delicious and ok but a little harsh.
 
That I am waiting for the beer bubble to burst so that we can get the crap micro/nano breweries, that those with little taste love, because they are an awesome "hidden gem", and they brew beers that are "experimental."

Calling crap beer "experimental" doesn't make it, just like calling food "eccentric" doesn't make it delicious. "Experimental" beer still has to taste good/appealing to be good.

Everybody and their brother has a brewery these days, and near 60% should not be in existence. Making a Mr. Beer kit does not make you a master brewer. But then again, I live in an area that is over-saturated with breweries, last count was 40+ breweries, not counting brewpubs, in a 70 mile radius.
 
Yeah, but isn't that the case with every industry? There are good ones and less good ones and downright bad ones.
We just happen to be passionate about this industry but it's universal. The only difference is we have the arrogance to think we can do better (and maybe it's true, but arrogant nonetheless.)
 
MagicRat said:
Is it really possible that LoDO could produce beer that's so much better that it would be worth the hassle?
Click to expand...

It really is. I can't see myself ever going back, even for ales. The malt flavor in the beer comes through so much smoother, cleaner and the flavor is just all around better. The best IPA i ever made was low oxygen. I just kicked the keg almost 5 months after making it and even the last half glass was still intense in hop flavor and aroma that was unlike anything i'd ever made before.

I wish it were less work rather than more, but the results speak for themselves. The difference, when executed correctly, is so obvious you don't need a triangle test.

You can make beer just fine without low oxygen processes, but there is a difference. Whether you want to go through the effort or not is up to you.
 
Let's see an INDEPENDENT triangle test... something that we are all still waiting on and no, that stupid test on the low oxygen brewing site doesn't count... that actually beggars belief. Geez, just this week Dr. Bamforth was on a podcast saying that oxygen is beneficial in the mash, and he's not exactly someone without any credibility.
 
schematix said:
It really is. I can't see myself ever going back, even for ales. The malt flavor in the beer comes through so much smoother, cleaner and the flavor is just all around better. The best IPA i ever made was low oxygen. I just kicked the keg almost 5 months after making it and even the last half glass was still intense in hop flavor and aroma that was unlike anything i'd ever made before.



I wish it were less work rather than more, but the results speak for themselves. The difference, when executed correctly, is so obvious you don't need a triangle test.



You can make beer just fine without low oxygen processes, but there is a difference. Whether you want to go through the effort or not is up to you.
Click to expand...


No offense intended whatsoever, but your own conclusion that your own beer tasted better when brewed with low oxygen is meaningless (except to you). See the early Brulosophy experiment "The Impact of Expectation on Perception." You expect the beer to be better because you worked so much harder on it. As the Brulosophy folks have shown over and over and over - when you do something different you expect the result to be a different beer and you will very likely perceive a different beer. But unless a significant proportion of uninterested parties can tell the difference, the difference you perceive is very likely based on nothing more than your expectation.
If there is data that supports that low oxygen brewing makes better beer, I will happily accept the results (although it's very unlikely I'll ever do it myself). Until then, I will remain extremely skeptical.
 
My contrarian opinion is that since laboratory testing has proven that ones actual IBU's are highly likely to be as much as 33% or more off (high or low, with somewhat more likelihood for the low side), it is humorous to see people slaving over the calculations to hit their expected target IBU's to the decimal point.

On top of this, in a recent podcast interview, Glenn Tinseth mentioned that he never once tested pellet hops, so he explicitly stated that all IBU bets are off for pellets. The calculators that add 10% IBU's to his quasi-empirical formula for the use of pellets are merely drawing for straws and fantasizing. There is no science behind this. And given that the greatest likelihood is to be low, perhaps it is better to enter pellet hops as leaf in the calculators?
 
Dogfish Head beers generally suck. The continuously hopped IPA series are very good but most of the rest, with wacky ingredients, are just plain terrible. They call Sam Calagione a genius, If he's a genius, he's not a brew genius, but a marketing genius..... getting people to pay $10 for a 4 pack for swill.
 
MagicRat said:
No offense intended whatsoever, but your own conclusion that your own beer tasted better when brewed with low oxygen is meaningless (except to you). See the early Brulosophy experiment "The Impact of Expectation on Perception." You expect the beer to be better because you worked so much harder on it. As the Brulosophy folks have shown over and over and over - when you do something different you expect the result to be a different beer and you will very likely perceive a different beer. But unless a significant proportion of uninterested parties can tell the difference, the difference you perceive is very likely based on nothing more than your expectation.
If there is data that supports that low oxygen brewing makes better beer, I will happily accept the results (although it's very unlikely I'll ever do it myself). Until then, I will remain extremely skeptical.
Click to expand...
Schematix is an ass hat, he said he was brewing ****ty beers until his LODO revelation (something I never have a problem with). He even went so far as to tell someone that had won and placed high in several competitions that he must not of went up against a LODO brewer or he would not have won, having no idea of the quality of his beers (he assumed he must have won with a 30). I try and keep HSA to a minimum but give me a break, great beer is great beer.
 
MagicRat said:
No offense intended whatsoever, but your own conclusion that your own beer tasted better when brewed with low oxygen is meaningless (except to you).
Click to expand...

No offense taken, unlike another easily offended brewer here...

I understand the whole concept of bias and i'm not claiming to be immune from it. I'm just saying the difference was so blatantly obvious in multiple ways that it's beyond just what bias brings to the table. I did the process, experienced something very different from normal, liked it, and now i do it all the time. I would submit that i may be biased towards liking it since i put the effort into it, but i outright reject that there is no difference.

It's your choice that you need a triangle test from brulosphy to be convinced. My contrarian opinion is that a triangle test does not prove anything. I put them in the same category as the polls that said HRC was going to be president.
 
Wildcat_Brewing said:
Schematix is an ass hat, he said he was brewing ****ty beers until his LODO revelation (something I never have a problem with). He even went so far as to tell someone that had won and placed high in several competitions that he must not of went up against a LODO brewer or he would not have won, having no idea of the quality of his beers (he assumed he must have won with a 30). I try and keep HSA to a minimum but give me a break, great beer is great beer.
Click to expand...

Not what i said. Here is what i said...

schematix said:
Winning in a competition doesn't say anything other than that a group of judges like your beer better than others that were submitted.
Click to expand...

schematix said:
I didn't knock his beers. He was essentially arguing that his methods were more than sufficient because he's won medals in competition. I don't believe that is a logically sound conclusion.

My comment was that just because you won a medal doesn't actually mean much because a competition is only a contest among those that participated. It doesn't say anything about the caliber of the participants, or by extension, the absolute quality of winning entries. It's entirely possible to win a gold metal in a competition with a 30 point beer.... do you think a beer scoring 30 in a competition is really a great beer?
Click to expand...


I made a logically sound argument, you on the other hand, couldn't get your reply past the language filter.

Wildcat_Brewing said:
**** off schematix
Click to expand...
 
schematix said:
My contrarian opinion is that a triangle test does not prove anything. I put them in the same category as the polls that said HRC was going to be president.
Click to expand...


I guess that's contrarian in the sense that saying by the world is flat. Any credibility you had before that statement is completely lost - What a face palm.
 
jmark said:
I guess that's contrarian in the sense that saying by the world is flat. Any credibility you had before that statement is completely lost - What a face palm.
Click to expand...

Negative. The triangle test is a statistical tool. It doesn't "prove" anything. It's just a poll... just like a competition.
 
The likelihood for statistical significance comes from the sample size and sample (as well as the test parameters) quality. A correlation might be drawn with the polls that for the most part had Hillary beating Trump. From the perspective of sample size and more importantly flaws within the very test itself and bias (un-randomness) within the sample group selection process (as well as within the isolation level of the participants (who can influence and thereby bias each other), and the potential for contamination due to the presence of undesired "guidance/leading/bias" from those conducting the test) it is entirely possible for a triangle tests results to simultaneously have a meaningful R^2 and be meaningless. Brulosophy could be a prime example of this.
 
Last edited:
Silver_Is_Money said:
The likelihood for statistical significance comes from the sample size and sample (as well as the test parameters) quality. A correlation might be drawn with the polls that for the most part had Hillary beating Trump. From the perspective of sample size and more importantly flaws within the very test itself and bias (un-randomness) within the sample group selection process (as well as within the isolation level of the participants (who can influence and thereby bias each other), and the potential for contamination due to the presence of undesired "guidance/leading/bias" from those conducting the test) it is entirely possible for a triangle tests results to simultaneously have a meaningful R^2 and be meaningless. Brulosophy could be a prime example of this.
Click to expand...


The guys at Brulosophy have always been very cautious in advising what conclusions should or should not be drawn from their experiments and this is, or should be, the case with any scientific research. But their methods are scientifically sound and, as a body of work, they have called into question a lot of widely held assumptions. But you are correct that any particular "xbeeriment" must be evaluated on its own merit along with whatever flaws or weaknesses there might be in the process.
 
Even major studies of new (and existing) medicines or nutrients or agricultural innovations, etc... by prominent universities and institutions have been found to be corrupted (biased) and flawed. Many if not most of their conclusions are not repeatable via follow-up studies. Perhaps the greatest problem is the lack of such follow-up studies.

And then there is cold fusion....

Control is not always what it is cracked up to be.

That said, I enjoy following Brulosophy, and there is much value in it, even if only entertainment value. Most would likely admit that Brulosophy would quickly lose its entire audience via. boredom if it always came up with uncontroversial mainstream expected results.
 
jmark said:
Let's see an INDEPENDENT triangle test... something that we are all still waiting on and no, that stupid test on the low oxygen brewing site doesn't count... that actually beggars belief.
Click to expand...

Billions of dollars invested worldwide by successful modern breweries for LoDO processes, and yet a few homebrewers are hung up waiting on some stupid triangle test from a blogger. Really? :rolleyes:
 
Trillions of dollars are sank into a game called the stock market. 10's of millions (at least) into a pure fantasy called the bitcoin. Ditto global warming. Did you study the historical phenomenon called the tulip bulb craze? Cold fusion. Religion. Obamacare. West coast housing prices. Etc...

A billion screaming Chinese can't be wrong, can they?

There are clearly many ways to waste money.
 
Silver_Is_Money said:
Trillions of dollars are sank into a game called the stock market. 10's of millions (at least) into a pure fantasy called the bitcoin. Ditto global warming. Did you study the historical phenomenon called the tulip bulb craze? Cold fusion. Religion. Obamacare. West coast housing prices. Etc...

A billion screaming Chinese can't be wrong, can they?

There are clearly many ways to waste money.
Click to expand...

And there are flat out ignorant ways to dismiss advances in QA/QC in modern brewing.

Look, there is a difference (and plenty of peer reviewed science to support it). Whether or not it would be worth the efforts for you is a call only you can make. But failing to acknowledge the theory as a whole just makes you look ignorant.
 
The issue actually has nothing to do with acknowledging a theory. The issue is rather one of recognizing the difference between theory and fact. Ponder this carefully before you label people as ignorant.

BTW, I personally think people who believe that theories are facts are ignorant.
 
Silver_Is_Money said:
The issue actually has nothing to do with acknowledging a theory. The issue is rather one of recognizing the difference between theory and fact. Ponder this carefully before you label people as ignorant.

BTW, I personally think people who believe that theories are facts are ignorant.
Click to expand...

:confused:
I'm not going to argue with someone who doesn't know what a scientific theory is. You're going through a whole lot of effort to dismiss entirely something you clearly know nothing about. That's categorically ignorant.
 
Tiber_Brew said:
And there are flat out ignorant ways to dismiss advances in QA/QC in modern brewing.

Look, there is a difference (and plenty of peer reviewed science to support it). Whether or not it would be worth the efforts for you is a call only you can make. But failing to acknowledge the theory as a whole just makes you look ignorant.
Click to expand...

I'll probably regret this, but I've been following this discussion for quite a while now and might as well throw in my 2 cents. What could go wrong? ;)

While I don't believe that a triangle test is the end-all-be-all factor in deciding whether or not a given brewing process is worth implementing or not, I also do not think it's unreasonable to want to see empirical evidence that something is firmly backed by science before accepting it as truth. And I know that there is science/studies available that contribute to the theory that LODO techniques are beneficial in some way. I have perused the German brewing forum and supporting white papers, etc.

Without definitive evidence that the Malt flavors and flavor stability of all beer styles is benefited by these processes translated to homebrewing scale, I'm left to my existing knowledge and opinions and what I do know about the science which is, admittedly, limited. I have no doubts at all about the perils of oxidation on the cold side, especially as the beer ages. Myself, my beer is not around long enough for too much flavor instability to take hold with the small amounts of oxygen I allow through in my process. That's based on hundreds of batches using pretty decent oxygen avoidance practices on the cold side. And as long as I'm producing beer 5-10 gallons at a time and drinking it pretty quickly, it's just not something I worry about. And I'm very confident in the quality of the beer I brew and take a lot of pride in it.

I do not claim to know whether or not there is significant confirmation bias at play here with the proponents of LoDo or not. I don't presume to know what someone is experiencing. But I do think you can't rule it out. I've seen it time and time again in the professional audio industry. Someone claims that the difference between two different Audio-to-Digital converters is "night and day". Meanwhile, the science states that the differences in the resulting audio quality is so far down is the audible range that no human being should be able to detect it. And you put that person in a double-blind test and they can't reliably identify one vs the other. Confirmation bias is STRONG.

And I also don't think the fact that multiple large breweries invest gigantic amounts of money isn't evidence either way. You determine what you believe will make your product better and that's where you invest your time and money. That doesn't necessarily make them right. And some of the most respected, revered beers in the world, including some of the styles purported to require this attention to hot side oxygen prevention, are brewed without dedicating significant attention to it.

But all of that is just my opinion and my observations based on my limited experience. But I'm as anal as they come about making the best beer I can and I also never shy away from tedious or time consuming processes if I think they will help me make better beer, and on this topic I'm not convinced yet enough to implement it.

Should anyone particularly care that I'm not convinced? Nah, not at all. If someone believes they're doing something that benefits their beers they should keep doing it.

Peace, everybody. Hopefully that was stated as neutrally/respectfully as possible. :)

Dan
 
My contrarian/"unpopular" beer opinion is that this is the second of two brewing forums I frequent being torn in two by what I'll call 'extreme enthusiasts for a particular method'. The opinion/science/theory/whatever from those enthusiasts has been presented in about the worst way I can imagine for attracting other brewers. If this new opinion/science/theory/whatever does this to relationships I want nothing to do with it. Not to say it's right, wrong, or indifferent. ....just that the introduction and presentation sux.
 
Do you need to brew LoDO to make good beer? Of course not.

Objectively, LoDO brewing will make a different beer. Subjectively, some might not notice it, or maybe won't prefer it, some might love it to the point of never turning back to non-LoDO.

What the evidence of LoDO science suggests is that it does work and it does make different beer. What it does not say is that you will for sure notice that difference, or that you will for sure love it. Only you can determine that.



Edit: for your reading pleasure, the infamous Low Oxygen Sensory Analysis including multiple triangle tests
 
Thanks for the link I don't have a horse in this race but ....... Nice triangle test ;) 27 out of 30 with all 27 preferring LO ..... hmmmm suspiciously definative, I would think it would take a cup of urine against newly tapped Pilsner Urquell to get results that definative..... and the faster kicked keg experiement is nonsense. Bad science, and this is an outstanding example, doesn't help get people to recognize the low oxygen movement


Tiber_Brew said:
Edit: for your reading pleasure, the infamous Low Oxygen Sensory Analysis including multiple triangle tests
Click to expand...
 
Before demonizing me in any of this, go back and note very carefully that in all of my "questioning the validity of statistics" related posts I was merely "generically" questioning the procedure used to achieve valid statistical meaningfulness (while providing examples of cases where the statistics have failed to be correct, not due to statistical mathematics failure, but due to any level of induced control or methods error). Not once in my posts did I even hint at denigrating the potential for success via LoDO. Any such association had to have been made only within the minds of the readers of my posts. The mind can do that to you.

And after all, this is the contrarian opinion thread, is it not? Amazing to find contrarian opinions being bashed on the contrarian opinions thread....
 
On the point of big breweries investing millions of dollars into LODO setups. They also have a lot of problems they have to work past than homebrewers do.

When I finish fermenting a beer I can put it straight into a keg and keep in a kegerator at a consistent temperature until it is empty. Or if I bottle then I can control the storage until my friends and I have finished the entire batch.

Breweries though unless they are brewpubs are at the mercy of the distribution and retailers to get their beer to the end consumers. They have little to no control over how their product is treated between leaving the brewery to it being judged by customers. They also can't force people to buy it in narrow windows.
A homebrewer can be working on his beer the day it finishes fermentation but a commercial brewer can't get their beers to consumers for at minimum a week... It can be 1-3 months especially for imported beers. Big breweries must invest anything they can into prolonging the shelf stability of their beers while that is a minor concern for homebrewers... And zero concern for the majority of homebrewers.

I am also very suspect on the sensory analysis.. Was the person performing the test really trying to see whether there is a significant difference or were they just trying to get a data point for LODO brewing.

In their page describing how you can tell oxidation they use an example of a malfunctioning pump introducing oxygen throughout the entire mash. During the sensory analysis were they taking the steps to work to make the best non-LODO beer they could or were they using faulty equipment and taking shortcuts. For one thing they mentioned they used warmer fermentation temperatures in the non-LODO beers than the LODO one...
 
roadkizzle said:
When I finish fermenting a beer I can put it straight into a keg and keep in a kegerator at a consistent temperature until it is empty.

...

Big breweries must invest anything they can into prolonging the shelf stability of their beers while that is a minor concern for homebrewers... And zero concern for the majority of homebrewers.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a slight misunderstanding of low oxygen brewing and its effects and purposes. In an effort to keep this thread on track, get your questions answered here.
 
Tiber_Brew said:
You seem to have a slight misunderstanding of low oxygen brewing and its effects and purposes. In an effort to keep this thread on track, get your questions answered here.
Click to expand...

I understand that the homebrewer LODO evangelists wax on and on about the affect of hot side aeration on the flavor of their beer coming out. The PDF linked on that page appeared to be nonsense marketing by homebrewers.

Yes many of the big professional brewing systems work to limit oxygen... BUT WHY do they.

I don't want a bunch of evangelists telling me that they do it for certain purposes. I want to know why the big professional brewers chose those technologies as they have come up. The PDF talks about how the low level of oxygen is desired by the breweries because it leads to more shelf stable beers. But the authors of the PDF are just putting forth their personal opinions when it comes to talking about the immediate results of LODO brewing.

That resource had terrible citing so there was no way of knowing what the small amount of resources were saying.

Until it can be proven to not just be confirmation bias or a placebo effect I will still say the reduced oxygen has more to do with long term stability making sure that the consumers get the beer the brewers are making than it does to produce the correct beer in the first place.


More on-topic I will say that my unpopular opinion regarding beer is that I think unbalanced beers regardless of being towards hops, malt, or alternative flavors are not very good. I hate the majority of modern "imperial stouts" especially those in the vein of the Prairie Bomb! series. I find IPA's exceedingly boring. I love malty flavors as long as they actually are balanced with appropriate bitterness.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top