# "Things I'm sure you don't need to do to make great beer&#



## welly2 (21/6/16)

Actually he just lists two things. A comment re: yeast pitching temperature I'm a little dubious about:

"if it isn't too hot to kill them, it's not too hot to pitch"

From what I understand, the start of fermentation is when your temperature has to be right (ie. not too hot) otherwise too high a temperature and you start introducing flavours you don't want.

http://www.beer-simple.com/brewing/2016/6/20/wasted-things-im-sure-you-dont-need-to-do-to-make-great-beer


----------



## TheWiggman (21/6/16)

Flamebait if I've ever seen it. Unfortunately reeks of the "I haven't noticed a problem so it isn't an issue" mentality, flying in the face of many a scientist and professional researcher out there. If something suits the individual brewer then good for them, but that doesn't make an idea conclusive. 
Not why why I'm saying this, the trolls have won.


----------



## Killer Brew (21/6/16)

Was expecting to see an article from the Brulosopher. Clearly this guy is a fan though as he cites their work as a reference.


----------



## Droopy Brew (21/6/16)

welly2 said:


> Actually he just lists two things. A comment re: yeast pitching temperature I'm a little dubious about:
> 
> "if it isn't too hot to kill them, it's not too hot to pitch"
> 
> ...


 At the start of fermentation yes- but as he points out, the first hour or so is normally a rousing and growth phase with little fermentation going on. I wouldnt pitch at 35C but if you can get the wort to say 28C and are confident it will be at 20C in an hour or 2 then why not?

I actually agree with his points made but am open to listening to those who have a valid reasoning why he is wrong.


----------



## MHB (21/6/16)

Citing Brulosopher is like citing myth busters as a reference.
On second thoughts, it does prove the author hasn't got a clue so I can stop wasting my time by reading any further.
Mark


----------



## Danscraftbeer (21/6/16)

When I read and doubt something like this I simply think whether it would be a practice of more professional craft brewers. Simple answer is no. It wouldn't be acceptable for a large scale brewers to pitch at high temps.....would it???
Also I have read countless postings from home brewers on forums who some may have that (she'll be right loose attitude) also noting that ditch brews seem to be more common and acceptable to these brewers as well if you read enough to see a pattern.


----------



## Rocker1986 (21/6/16)

*Facepalm*


----------



## Zorco (21/6/16)

Stealing the word 'flamebait'.

:written opinion which endeavours to cause frustration and argument from respondents and observers.


Edit: Crap, am I getting old and out of touch!?


----------



## sp0rk (21/6/16)

This bloke is getting praised over on reddit for his revelatory post :facepalm:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Homebrewing/comments/4oyskp/wasted_things_im_sure_you_dont_need_to_do_to_make/


----------



## MHB (21/6/16)

Whether facepalm is the right term I don't know (way too old), but there is plenty of what Danscraft was talking about here to
See http://aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/91336-2hr-all-grain-brewday-it-can-be-done/
I give up
Mark


----------



## sp0rk (21/6/16)

You're right there with what Dan was saying




Danscraftbeer said:


> Also I have read countless postings from home brewers on forums who some may have that (she'll be right loose attitude) also noting that ditch brews seem to be more common and acceptable to these brewers as well if you read enough to see a pattern.


I've never ditched a batch, the only times I've come close are with my Belgian Golden Strong made with Aussie malts and home made candi sugar (that ended up coming good after 2 years and did well at the Newcastle show)
And a Cream Ale that I currently have in keg, but I think that's more to do with it tasting of cooked corn because I used stock feed cracked corn in a fairly high amount and it was my first ever cereal mash
Other than that I've stuck to proven methods and never had a "bad" batch (my 6 month battle with a brewery wide infection doesn't count...)


----------



## Killer Brew (21/6/16)

zorsoc_cosdog said:


> Stealing the word 'flamebait'.
> 
> :written opinion which endeavours to cause frustration and argument from respondents and observers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Droopy Brew (22/6/16)

I still havent seen any valid argument against his points other than shortcuts will reduce quality. Which is fair but not specific.

So lets put aside the yeast pitch because I can see how that could create issues and the- if it doesnt kill em then its fine argument is probably there to stir debate.

But his other 2 points- secondary and whirlpool.

Who here actually uses secondary regularly unless it is to add say fruit or bulk prime? Probably not many so i think he makes a valid point and doubt many brewers who ditch the 2ndry turn out poorer beers because of it.

Whirlpool- who here does a 30 minute whirlpool? Im assuming that he is talking about spinning it for 30 minutes and is not including the rest period for either hop stand or letting the wort come to a stop. Personally, I use a spoon and whirlpool for no longer than a minute before letting the wort come to a stop and always get a good trub cone.

Anyone reckon that the 2 points above will cause serious detriment to a beer?


----------



## MHB (22/6/16)

Droopy
The problem with people like Beer-Simp and Brulosopher is ignorance. On the www to a very large extent anything the reader thinks sounds plausible carries equal weight. Without any qualification or systematic research, it all appears to come down to I think it tastes OK and so do my mates so it must be right!

Luckily brewing is a natural process that wants to happen and we are working with yeast that has a pretty powerful evolutionary imperative to survive. People have been deliberately making alcohol from grain since the stone age, starting around the industrial revolution we have been systematically researching brewing and I would contend that at this point we can and often do have access to the best beer made in human history. We know what ingredients it takes and the best way to process them, we know more about yeast than ever before, how it acts and the effect that has on the beer we want to make.

Just to address your three points above, including the one you opted out on.
Yeast
How many times have you seen reference to Chris White showing people how much yeast is killed just by pitching into wort, rather than hydrating it properly? Personally I'm a little skeptical and do remember he has a vested interest.
Some yob saying he can dump his yeast into a hot wort with no ill-effects is even more unbelievable, fortunately for him even if he was killing 90% of his yeast the beer will still get brewed. Would the beer benefit? Unlikely, as we can measure the metabolic effects of brewing hotter/cooler - if you don't believe me do a split batch of a hefeweizen brewed at both ends of the recommended temperature range - you won't need a gas chromatograph to tell the difference.
Demonstrably pitching/ferment temperature will affect beer.

Racking/Secondary
If you are brewing Ale you don't need to rack beer. The qualifier being that you have put enough healthy yeast into the wort to complete the ferment before deleterious effects from aging/dying yeast (and a few other aging effects) kick in. Again these are well understood and are described in fault diagnosis tables, read up Protease A, Autolysis, Carbonyls and auto-oxidisation... there are plenty. The harm done to beer flavour and head formation/retention are again measurable and quantifiable.
At a home brewing level there are clearly some risks in racking as well as possible benefits, doesn't mean you Should or Shouldn't rack. It means you need to understand the results of the choices you make, and what those choices are based on.

Whirlpooling
Clearly you or Beer-Chimp have no idea what is happening in a whirlpool. It isn't the stirring it into spinning but the slowing down that forms the trub cone. Stirring it any longer, too vigorously or too fast (over3m/s) than necessary will have negative effects on the trub removal/cone formation, mostly by breaking up flock particles and the first rule of flock is "the bigger it is the faster it falls" (read up on Stokes Law), stirring too much will also introduce more oxygen and, yes, HSA is real, and again we can measure the effects.
I will do Simp the courtesy of assuming he isn't a total fuckwit and that he means - establish rotation then leave it for 30 minutes to settle - with a decent kettle fining that may be excessive but any other interpretation would be seriously wrong headed.

Short cuts DO reduce quality, not just in brewing, Christ if you were painting the lounge room walls - the preparation is more important than the painting. If your first concern is "Cheap Quick Alcohol" do what you like - if you want good beer do it right!
Mark


----------



## manticle (22/6/16)

@droopy - Re whirlpool: I think he's talking about settling time.

I agree with don't believe everything you read/are told and I agree you need to assess methods based on your own experience as much as anything else. That's exactly why I let my whirlpooled wort sit, covered for 20 mins before running off and why I pitch cool.

One thing he's missed in his discussion comments is that while esters are formed later in fermentation, they are part of a chemical pathway that begins earlier in the process. The precursors that lead to specific levels and types of ester are influenced by things like temperature (and a bunch of other things).


----------



## Droopy Brew (22/6/16)

Some good points Mark. Firstly your point about the internet is well taken. I have learnt a hell of a lot about brewing through this site but I always make sure I have a good look at who is providing the advise in context of some of their other posts. Blokes like yourself, I have read enough to know that something you say is worth taking to the bank. Others- well not so much.

I didnt really opt out of the yeast point, more so recognising that it wasnt his strongest argument. I suppose it depends a bit on what is a high temp. Dry yeast is reccommended to be rehydrated at about 35C (danstar). Now Im not sure if liquid yeast would handle that temp and I dont think he specifies temps but if I pitched at say 26C and cooled it to 18C in a couple of hours- will that have a marked impact on the flavour? I know that fermenting at the 2 temps would but in that first hour or 2 how much fermentaion is going on vs growth and rousing ? and would the yeast activity during that period produce compounds that will affect the flavour?

Point taken on the secondary- he has made a fairly broad statement and there are times where it would be advisable to 2ndry. I have never done it- simply because my beers spend no more than a few weeks in the fermenter and the issues you mention generally take more time to develop yeah?

With the whirlpooling I think you are saying the same as what I have. The stir does not need to be long and really the settling period doesnt either- once it has stopped moving then it should be right to go. I think that is also what he is saying, he says you dont need a 30 minute whirlpool, he uses 7 minutes. What wasnt clear was if he was talking about the actual spinning or the settling (which as you say is what seperates the trub). Yes lets assume he isnt a fuckwit and is talking about total time.

I agree shortcuts will generally result in a poorer product but cutting out *unnecessary* steps or time is not always a shortcut and may be an improvement in some cases.


----------



## manticle (22/6/16)

Re : temp - I'm hypothesising but my main reason for cool pitching is fermentation is exothermic so pitching above intended temp will work against cooling. As I no chill and have the luxury of time, I prefer to drop a couple of degrees below intended temp before pitching. Anecdotal but I have noticed cleaner tasting beer from doing this.


----------



## AJS2154 (22/6/16)

MHB said:


> Droopy
> The problem with people like Beer-Simp and Brulosopher is ignorance. O


Mark,

I agree with everything you are saying in your post with just the one comment. I have read plenty of the articles from Brulosopher, and whether or not we collectively agree with them or not doesn't really matter for this conversation. To me, the value of what he is doing is that he provokes thought and challenges the status quo. Granted, at time he might potentially want to create some controversy, and whether or not it is his intention or otherwise, he challenges us to think outside the square......that is the part of this hobby that I most enjoy. I don't do it to save money, I don't necessarily do it to drink more beer, I love it because it gives me an opportunity in my life to think about something that really interests me from all sorts of problem solving angles. That excites me. I wish my work was more like that.

I too dislike the ignorant yob who has an idea and therfore it is fact. At least Brulosopher tries to tackle an idea with some semblance of structure and then tests his theory on the finished product. I would much rather that than the straight up "I have an idea therefore it is fact" approach.

Regards, Anthony


----------



## Droopy Brew (22/6/16)

Yeah fair point. Heat generated by yeast growth may slow down cooling and result in fermentation at higher than intended temps.

For what its worth I cool to intended fermentation temp before pitching, but was interested in his theory of the growth phase during that period of time.


----------



## MHB (22/6/16)

One thing I will say about yeast is that it is very temperature sensitive in some unexpected ways.
To give an example, back before we manufactured enzymes by tinkering with bacteria. Invertase was made by dumping a whole lot of yeast into a hot (~60oC IIRC) strong sugar solution. As it was curling up and dying it would pump out all the Invertase it could, in response to the presence of sucrose.

Without doing a bunch or re-reading books I haven't looked at for a while - so general knowledge rather than referenced - high temperature (>25oC) dramatically increases the rate of mutations, particularly petite mutation, so not something you would want to do if you were planning to reuse the yeast.
Another point that comes to mind is the way yeast metabolises wort sugars, I think if you pitch hot some yeasts loose or at least stunt their ability to ferment Maltotriose - reducing the attenuation limit of the beer... Unexpected outcomes and very strain dependant. Even if you get away with abusing one yeast that doesn't mean you can treat all yeast the same

Two weeks is the generally accepted upper limit for contact with the original yeast. That is at around 18oC a lot less if you ferment warmer. Past that the harm is measurable.
I know it isn't AHB conventional wisdom but "If the ferment isn't over in 7 days you underpitched!" In commercial brewing you would expect to reach FG in 3-4 days, in a CCV by the 7th day the yeast would probably have been cropped 3 times so even if left to mature longer the yeast will be a lot younger and healthy.

Anthony - sadly I find what I have read of Brulosopher to be pseudoscience - typifying what I mean by sounding convincing, without any quantitative or qualitative testing other than tastes OK to me...
Mark


----------



## manticle (22/6/16)

The main issue I have with brulosophy is not so much with them or the way they 'test' - it is very openly presented as not being dogmatic fact or binding science but simply an experience shared on the internet.

What is troubling is how many people seem to accept those experiences as fact/science, using brulosophy as a reference because 'they did it and the beer was ok'. It's some guys who tried stuff, just like we do and wrote about what they tried and what they thought on the internet. There's loads of other stuff on the net, both experiential and experimental that has found the opposite in similar circumstances.


----------



## TheWiggman (22/6/16)

Back out of this thread now Mark or you may well have an aneuryism!


----------



## GalBrew (22/6/16)

MHB said:


> I know it isn't AHB conventional wisdom but "If the ferment isn't over in 7 days you underpitched!" In commercial brewing you would expect to reach FG in 3-4 days.....


Agreed, my ferments always hit FG in 4-5 days tops. I put it down to pitching rate and oxygenation.


----------



## AJS2154 (22/6/16)

manticle said:


> The main issue I have with brulosophy is not so much with them or the way they 'test' - it is very openly presented as not being dogmatic fact or binding science but simply an experience shared on the internet.
> 
> What is troubling is how many people seem to accept those experiences as fact/science, using brulosophy as a reference because 'they did it and the beer was ok'. It's some guys who tried stuff, just like we do and wrote about what they tried and what they thought on the internet. There's loads of other stuff on the net, both experiential and experimental that has found the opposite in similar circumstances.


Yes, still in agreement with you manticle. If people accept the loose findings of a technique as factual, that is an error of judgement on behalf of the person rather than the presenter. But don't we all do that every day, with so many aspects of our life? We take a bit of information from here, some from there and maybe some technical information. We put it together in a decision matrix. That's why I am on this site, and how I have learnt most of my life.

I was a young graduate working in research and fast found that the real skill was often finding the statistical analysis to support your hypothesis, rather than the research. That's why there is often opposite findings on the same subject, especially when combined with personal biases

Not looking to give you an aneuryism Mark. I often read your posts and respect your opinions....just enjoying the conversation.

See you, Anthony


----------



## GalBrew (22/6/16)

AJS2154 said:


> I was a young graduate working in research and fast found that the real skill was often finding the statistical analysis to support your hypothesis, rather than the research.


Ha! Totally. I loved it when people would just choose different post-hoc tests until significance was achieved.....or just go straight to non-parametric tests and justify it in their own mind as ok.


----------



## MHB (22/6/16)

TheWiggman said:


> Back out of this thread now Mark or you may well have an aneuryism!


Not even lightly stressed - and am enjoying the conversation.
Mind you its far from the first time this type of thing has come up since I started here over 10 years ago.
Maybe I shouldn't bother, people who are highly focused on getting pissed cheap/lazily appear to vanish over time - probably end up on distilling fora discussing how dear sugar, bakers yeast and tomato puree have become. So its probably a self correcting problem, mind you an observation based on 20 years making a living selling home brew, people who make good beer keep brewing.
Mark


----------



## Killer Brew (22/6/16)

MHB said:


> One thing I will say about yeast is that it is very temperature sensitive in some unexpected ways.
> To give an example, back before we manufactured enzymes by tinkering with bacteria. Invertase was made by dumping a whole lot of yeast into a hot (~60oC IIRC) strong sugar solution. As it was curling up and dying it would pump out all the Invertase it could, in response to the presence of sucrose.
> 
> Without doing a bunch or re-reading books I haven't looked at for a while - so general knowledge rather than referenced - high temperature (>25oC) dramatically increases the rate of mutations, particularly petite mutation, so not something you would want to do if you were planning to reuse the yeast.
> ...


I recall reading also in my IBD materials that yeast is susceptible to rapid temp changes of greater than a couple of degrees per hour so a crash from a high pitching temp down to ferment temps would be detrimental. Is that consistent with your understanding Mark?


----------



## MHB (22/6/16)

Not specifically - mind you its been a while since studying for the IBD. But Yes, well recall that yeast likes low and steady and its frighteningly easy to put it off its game.
As above yeast can sometimes react in unexpected ways, temperamental little suckers.

You enjoying the IBD study? I found it fascinating, if just a touch Anglocentric - still got most of the resources I put together to study from, if you need anything please feel free to contact me
Mark


----------



## sp0rk (22/6/16)

MHB said:


> Not even lightly stressed - and am enjoying the conversation.
> Mind you its far from the first time this type of thing has come up since I started here over 10 years ago.
> Maybe I shouldn't bother, people who are highly focused on getting pissed cheap/lazily appear to vanish over time - probably end up on distilling fora discussing how dear sugar, bakers yeast and tomato puree have become. So its probably a self correcting problem, mind you an observation based on 20 years making a living selling home brew, people who make good beer keep brewing.
> Mark


Gotta admit, TPW makes a damn fine neutral


----------



## manticle (22/6/16)

AJS2154 said:


> Yes, still in agreement with you manticle. If people accept the loose findings of a technique as factual, that is an error of judgement on behalf of the person rather than the presenter. But don't we all do that every day, with so many aspects of our life? We take a bit of information from here, some from there and maybe some technical information. We put it together in a decision matrix. That's why I am on this site, and how I have learnt most of my life.
> 
> 
> See you, Anthony


Of course we do. What I mean is, (as an example) situations such as where someone recommends separating hot trub from wort and some genius pops up with a link to a single exbeeriment where they include trub and say authoritaively that it's all a disproven myth and no-one should bother.

Nothing at all wrong with reading, trying stuff at home and seeing how it all works in your final product. You are the ultimate judge and master of your own palate (although knowledge about what and why is super helpful). I have nothing against people trying stuff and telling people their experiences. In this instance, my experience differs and I liken it very much to what I learned in kitchens. Everything you do matters in the end, some more than others.


----------



## Killer Brew (22/6/16)

MHB said:


> Not specifically - mind you its been a while since studying for the IBD. But Yes, well recall that yeast likes low and steady and its frighteningly easy to put it off its game.
> As above yeast can sometimes react in unexpected ways, temperamental little suckers.
> 
> You enjoying the IBD study? I found it fascinating, if just a touch Anglocentric - still got most of the resources I put together to study from, if you need anything please feel free to contact me
> Mark


Thanks for the offer. I know what you mean by Anglocentric. Doing the craft beer section I had to learn about casking!

I chose to do a 2 week intense study via Tafe SA to help prepare for the exam which I sat in May. Really enjoyed the hands on learning delivered by local brewing legend Stephen Nelsen both in the classroom and on their 10HL system. Got the results earlier this month and passed the exam so it's nice to have that in the back pocket if I ever need. Challenge to myself now is to keep learning.


----------



## yankinoz (22/6/16)

Re brulosophy, he sometimes runs useful experiments, but other times he reduces to a single experiment a problem that requires many.

For example, he tested several German wheat beer yeasts by fermenting at 18 C and found that several, including the popular Weihenstephaner strain, produced little or no banana ester. At that temp few do, and to evaluate banana there should have been a parallel trial at 21 or 22.


----------



## manticle (22/6/16)

For experimental combined with experiential by someone heavily involved/well known in homebrewing circles, it is hard to beat kai troester from braukaiser.


----------



## schtev (22/6/16)

manticle said:


> For experimental combined with experiential by someone heavily involved/well known in homebrewing circles, it is hard to beat kai troester from braukaiser.


A pity he is pretty quiet these days. Although the recent flurry about "LODO" or low dissolved oxygen brewing was enough to elicit a blog post from him. I hope he puts some of that stuff to the test.


----------



## manticle (22/6/16)

Cheers. Hadn't heard about LODO but initial skim reading looks interesting.


----------



## Brownsworthy (22/6/16)

Underpants that's what it is!

I'm sure I don't need underpants to make great beer.


----------



## Blind Dog (22/6/16)

Killer Brew said:


> Thanks for the offer. I know what you mean by Anglocentric. Doing the craft beer section I had to learn about casking!
> 
> I chose to do a 2 week intense study via Tafe SA to help prepare for the exam which I sat in May. Really enjoyed the hands on learning delivered by local brewing legend Stephen Nelsen both in the classroom and on their 10HL system. Got the results earlier this month and passed the exam so it's nice to have that in the back pocket if I ever need. Challenge to myself now is to keep learning.


OT, but Congratulations. You must have been stoked


----------



## Zorco (22/6/16)

Brownsworthy said:


> Underpants that's what it is!
> 
> I'm sure I don't need underpants to make great beer.


Can confirm this. A highly successful Pilsner was brewed without testicular support. I claimed physical exhaustion however and sought delicate massage. 

Not covered under Medicare it seems!


----------



## Markbeer (23/6/16)

I think one of the big problems with Brulosophy and other experiments of that ilk is that they choose to do experiments on beers that are APAs or IPAs that are dry hopped.

These beers are probably the best at covering the flaws caused by processes they are trying to debunk.

They should redo a lot on something like a kolsch. That will show the process change a lot better.


----------



## whitegoose (23/6/16)

I really enjoy this sort of article and this sort of debate. 
Personally I think that brewing is riddled with old wives tales, myths, and half truths... and I think that many people never question any of it and take it for gospel.I question pretty much everything, and granted, a lot of it turns out to be valuable, but not everything.


----------



## AJS2154 (23/6/16)

I agree whitegoose. I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate too.

The only thing I would say is that there are a number of people out there who want to debunk the old wives tales, yet they undertake their experiments with methods that are inaccurate and unsubstantiated....... ironically that is what they are railing against in the first place. In some instances they are creating and perpetuating their own old wives tales by work that isn't fact based. That was, if I am correct, the view of MHB and mantilce yesterday.

Providing they create thought and stimulate conversation I am all for it. Bring it on. Anthony


----------



## GalBrew (23/6/16)

Yeah I think from a garage 'science' (I use that term loosely) perspective, Brulosophy isn't too bad. Right up until the point where the only experimental end point measured is if a bunch of random hobos can pick up any flavour difference in a triangle test. At this point the whole thing becomes a pointless exercise in my opinion and is a great indication as to why they rarely get statistical significance on any experiment.


----------



## Blind Dog (23/6/16)

I’d agree there is a lot of misinformation, myths and neo-superstitions around in home brewing, but if you read reputable sources (and they’re not hard to find), it’s difficult to see why they still persist. Commercial breweries spend millions on their own research every year to better understand and improve processes and procedures. Universities and other organisation publish papers, books and other material packed full of useful information based on real experiments and scientific analysis – for example the technical and training material freely available from the IBD is incredibly informative, and is easy to read and understand.

To my mind, you should understand what a particular process or procedure achieves, or is designed to achieve, and how to measure if it has been achieved, before its altered or rejected. My problem with sites like the one linked by the OP and others is that they give no indication that they understand what the process is intended to achieve nor how to measure whether that has been achieved before they design an “experiment” based on a blind test of beers by themselves and their mates and then loudly congratulate themselves on debunking another brewing myth.

I’m interested in brewing the best beer I possible can using the systems, ingredients and time available to me. There are much better resources available than Brulospher and its ilk to help me achieve that.


----------



## MHB (23/6/16)

whitegoose said:


> I really enjoy this sort of article and this sort of debate.
> Personally I think that brewing is riddled with old wives tales, myths, and half truths... and I think that many people never question any of it and take it for gospel.I question pretty much everything, and granted, a lot of it turns out to be valuable, but not everything.


Ok name one, I mean myth or oldwives tale...
Compared to what is recommended in pretty much evert brewing book amateur or professional, Good water, Good malt well mashed, Sensible mash regime, Effective boil, Good yeast pitch at the right temperature...

What I would call the brewing basics, that if we think about it we know will produce good beer, and yet there appears to be a whole industry devoted to debunking the "myth" that good brewing practice makes good beer.

Seriously and as I said name one of these revelatory steps that have changed what works and how most people brew that isn't a development based on long standing well established brewing practice.
Don't say BIAB - please. Developed as a cheaper option than a Braumeister - a highly engineered brewing system that is designed by professional brewery engineers.
The closest may be No Chill, there are plenty of commercial examples that way predate AHB not to mention No Chill (anyone else remember the "original" Coopers kits).

Again every couple of months someone reinvents brewing, or has an epiphany, it all gets argued through and then most of us go back to trying to make good beer the same old way - because it works.
So for all the crap and debunking of traditional brewing can someone point me to a single gain.
Mark


----------



## Blind Dog (23/6/16)

Only sources of myths, misinformation etc I've come across are home brewing sites (predominantly in the the US) and a couple of HBSs I've had the misfortune to visit. Pick up any non-self published brewing text, and I'd have to agree that rapid chilling of wort is pretty much the only one that might qualify. Even then, I'd maintain you should try to understand what rapid chilling achieves that slow chilling does not, before sayings its a myth or unecessary. Plus its not new - coolships have been around for centuries; Hook Norton's is 116 years old and still in use.


----------



## Killer Brew (23/6/16)

Blind Dog said:


> OT, but Congratulations. You must have been stoked


Yeah thanks, I was. Exam pass mark was 66% and was heavily focused on chemical reactions in the production and cleaning processes so I left not entirely confident I had got there.


----------



## Bob_Loblaw (24/6/16)

GalBrew said:


> Yeah I think from a garage 'science' (I use that term loosely) perspective, Brulosophy isn't too bad. Right up until the point where the only experimental end point measured is if a bunch of random hobos can pick up any flavour difference in a triangle test. At this point the whole thing becomes a pointless exercise in my opinion and is a great indication as to why they rarely get statistical significance on any experiment.


While I agree that using evidence of "tastes ok so myth busted" is flawed, it's not exactly "random hobos" doing the taste testing. The majority of the time there are several BJCP judges involved. I'm all for calling out pseudo-science but there is a fair bit of unnecessary Bru-bashing going on in this thread.


----------



## GalBrew (24/6/16)

Bob_Loblaw said:


> While I agree that using evidence of "tastes ok so myth busted" is flawed, it's not exactly "random hobos" doing the taste testing. The majority of the time there are several BJCP judges involved. I'm all for calling out pseudo-science but there is a fair bit of unnecessary Bru-bashing going on in this thread.


I am a regular reader of Brulosophy and I know how it works. I stand by my random hobo comment. 

Maybe if they had a panel of master BJCP judges and maybe if it was the same panel of tasters for each experiment I might give it a bit more regard. Unfortunately I have only ever seen a couple of experiments where some sort of objective measure was used (IBUs in those cases). If they could back up the subjective tasting data with some sort of objective measurement of whatever is relevant it would be far more believable. Every experiment has to be qualified with the caveat of 'adjustment of factor X could not be picked up in a triangle test by the current cohort of tasters', rendering every result meaningless as it is the only result presented. They facts are the current way the experiments are conducted are never going to result in significance unless someone replaces one beer with raw sewerage.


----------



## klangers (24/6/16)

Things you don't _necessarily _need to make great beer:

An airlock (or kittens)
Reverse osmosis water filtration
RIMS
HERMS
A plate chiller
A counterflow chiller
Sub-gram accurate scales
An arduino
An STC1000
A mongolian burner
A conical fermenter
Cryogenic freezer for yeast storage
Pants

But there's a reason why people so almost invariably have most of the above. They make it _easier_ to brew great beer.

I don't know if there's a process that people can _stop_ doing, but there certainly always are ways to optimise product quality, elapsed time, energy usage and materials usage. Brewing science (supported by brewery engineering :super: ) has made this optimisation its primary goal, especially so in the last century. Just like (al)chemists have given up trying to turn lead into gold (you'll need a nuclear physicist for that), brewing chemists have given up on attempting shortcuts.

The most obvious optimisation for home brewing is yeast care and pitching (as MHB mentioned). You can save time AND get a better beer!

Typically an industrial brewery would also carefully tune its CIP regime to not waste time, energy or materials. Homebrewers don't generally have the knowledge or microbiological testing kit to do this though, and if I suggest it I'll be flamed. So I'll just leave that there as a thought.


----------



## JDW81 (24/6/16)

MHB said:


> So for all the crap and debunking of traditional brewing can someone point me to a single gain.


Yep, it emphasises that sound brewing practices, based on tried and true methods are the cornerstone of making good beer, and no amount of gimmicky equipment or "revolutionary processes" will ever replace good, basic brewing principles.


----------



## Elz (24/6/16)

Gimme post modern brewing which encapsulates traditional ingredients and I'm on board. Keep home brewing moving forward and I'm a happy brewer. More hops, different/blending styles, intuitive brewing and forward thinking. Keep on experimenting. Hop shots, WW, BIAB, new hop varieties, etc are great news for brewing.
Cheers 
Elz


----------



## Coldspace (26/6/16)

I agree , brulosphy can be right or wrong , I've been brewing great extract brews for 20 years plus , 
last few with all grain . Some great lagers, I sort of did my lagers similar to brulosphy, before reading his articles,
It worked then , but now I've upped the game I do mine with a double stepped 2.5 ltr starter pitched at 10 , raised to 12 over first week.
But....
I've got 2 mates who last year or 2 wanted a quick easy brew to guzzle at home. These guys couldn't give a dam about anything near what we all here on AHB do, although one is getting more interested , so starting them out, I made them but simple chest freezer step ups, fermenting Fridge which I recon is one of the most important steps, simple kit/ and add ons Morgan's receipies, Pilsner / great northern , mix up at 22 degrees , throw in one satche of s23, drop to 13 degrees over 18 hrs, hold 1 week, second week raise 1 degree each day to it hits 20, then cc / fine and leave 1 week. They get very drinkable guzzling lager that all their friends love.
I made it easy for them to start , and if they decide to persue the hobby down the track like I have then cool. If not at least they save themselves a fortune in guzzling beers at home that turn out pretty good. Maybe not compitiion quality but for them , who cares.

I myself , well I'm like you guys, obsessed lol ....... Hrs on AHB, even at Winton on mates phone, shhh, grain father after brew in bag esky mash tuns , bulk buys, grain mills, freezing yeast, brewing ris's, stir plates, refracs , aging spirits in 220 ltr barrels, 3 types of portable kegs set ups for family and friends , camping setups , **** I've only scratched the surface , my wife thinks I'm on another planet , lol

Could be doing worse things I tell her......


----------



## Zorco (26/6/16)

MHB said:


> Ok name one, I mean myth or oldwives tale...
> Compared to what is recommended in pretty much evert brewing book amateur or professional, Good water, Good malt well mashed, Sensible mash regime, Effective boil, Good yeast pitch at the right temperature...
> 
> What I would call the brewing basics, that if we think about it we know will produce good beer, and yet there appears to be a whole industry devoted to debunking the "myth" that good brewing practice makes good beer.
> ...


This entire line of thinking overlooks the neurotic factor of market differentiation. 

The single gain is claiming market share. And that gain can be significant.

And not just commercial credit, but social credit. Fostering self importance or simply airing their feathers, people play games and the 'debunk' is a manoeuvre appealing to a large proportion of people.

It seems deviant to me, but I understand it.

Nothing new is emerging from this debate.

Edit: removed word 'tragically'. May have seemed critical of MHB. But was intended to slag the society pathogen of Marketing.


----------



## MHB (27/6/16)

Pretty much agree, except for the last point - please be critical of MHB - be critical of everything.
I think I know just enough about brewing to know just how little I do know and how much there is to learn.

Just spent the last two days teaching some guys to run a brewery I have never seen before (a 200L Brewiks). Point being it runs on well understood principles and used known processes. The same grain requirement and strike water temperature equations work in a 20L pot on a stove because we are all doing the same thing.

Sure there will be tweaks and different efficacy, but at the core the processes are all the same, do the basics right and make good beer. 
Mark


----------



## Zorco (27/6/16)

I have no fear criticising you and need no encouragement.

From what I've seen of you and what I know of myself, these occasions will be constructive.

But, because you asked and are such a persistent bugger who needs to be correct:

"MHB is a poo poo bum face"

I copped that one the other day; straight to tha bonez right?

 I appreciate your work Mark


----------



## MHB (27/6/16)

I didn't say to make it personal
Skid Mark


----------



## welly2 (27/6/16)

klangers said:


> Things you don't _necessarily _need to make great beer:
> 
> An airlock (or kittens)
> Reverse osmosis water filtration
> ...


British brewers have been making fine ales for hundreds of years and the common attribute among all those brewers is pants. So the single most important key to making a great English bitter is the wearing of pants, clearly.


----------



## Blind Dog (27/6/16)

welly2 said:


> British brewers have been making fine ales for hundreds of years and the common attribute among all those brewers is pants. So the single most important key to making a great English bitter is the wearing of pants, clearly.


True - but they are worn on the head


----------



## Bribie G (27/6/16)

Well that excludes the Scottish brewers.


----------



## Jens-Kristian (29/6/16)

welly2 said:


> British brewers have been making fine ales for hundreds of years and the common attribute among all those brewers is pants. So the single most important key to making a great English bitter is the wearing of pants, clearly.



For much longer, the British brewers were wearing skirts, as most brewers throughout history have been women. Perhaps we should all wear skirts instead?


----------



## yoboseyo (30/6/16)

What Brulosopher shows is that human palates are remarkably unreliable at discerning differences in controlled conditions, and when they can they are remarkably unreliable at deciding what is pleasant.

The idea of absolute truth is pretty central too homebrew perfectionists. If theory predicts that doing X will have a positive effect, then doing X can't be wrong, and it's backed up by _real science! _But what about practical truth, or knowing to the bounds of what we can discern? Homebrewers don't have tools that measure the chemical compositions of our wort or the number of active yeast cells, etc. If mashing for longer theoretically creates more fermentables, how many more fermentable sugar molecules are in _your _wort as a result of mashing for longer?

Sticking to methods based on what you think is real science is an act of faith, because you don't have the ability to corroborate your findings. If you're to go about finding practical truth, what would your methods be?


----------



## MHB (30/6/16)

To follow on from the example you proposed, FG, or more fully apparent attenuation as measured by an hydrometer.
From OG and FG we all know we can calculate Alcohol, with a bit of very basic maths the number of moles of alcohol could be derived - from there the number of fermentable sugar molecules is a given.
Not even hard science to do but never the less real measured outcomes, a simple measurement of the difference between a short and long mash isn't beyond the competence of anyone who can float an hydrometer in beer and finger count.

Admittedly some maybe even most things aren't as easy to quantify as the above. That doesn't negate the science behind what is published in quality brewing books. I would agree that there a few "Absolute Truths" in brewing, there are however more than a few falsehoods.
Mark


----------



## billygoat (30/6/16)

Blind Dog said:


> Plus its not new - coolships have been around for centuries; Hook Norton's is 116 years old and still in use.


I've visited Hook Norton twice over the last 5 years and the coolship isn't used.


----------



## manticle (30/6/16)

yoboseyo said:


> What Brulosopher shows is that human palates are remarkably unreliable at discerning differences in controlled conditions, and when they can they are remarkably unreliable at deciding what is pleasant.
> 
> The idea of absolute truth is pretty central too homebrew perfectionists. If theory predicts that doing X will have a positive effect, then doing X can't be wrong, and it's backed up by _real science! _But what about practical truth, or knowing to the bounds of what we can discern? Homebrewers don't have tools that measure the chemical compositions of our wort or the number of active yeast cells, etc. If mashing for longer theoretically creates more fermentables, how many more fermentable sugar molecules are in _your _wort as a result of mashing for longer?
> 
> Sticking to methods based on what you think is real science is an act of faith, because you don't have the ability to corroborate your findings. If you're to go about finding practical truth, what would your methods be?


I absolutely agree that the human palate is one of the most important quality assessment tools we have at our disposal. George Fix, late eminent brewing scientist agrees. In keeping with what you're saying though, I shouldn't be relying on the palates of Marshall's group of mates doing some tasting on beers he's made a certain way with some hypotheses about the whys and wherefores. I should base my assessment of my own beer and process around my own palate (which I ultimately do - various brewing theory just informs and educates on which path I can try for improvement or to diagnose something tasting NQR).

I do contend that calling an acceptance of scientific ideas an act of faith misconstrues the definition of faith and misunderstands the distinction between scientific method and faith.

No-one has claimed 'absolute truth' in either camp by the way. That's a straw man concept that can be blown away in the wind.

Finally homebrewers do use measuring instruments - hydromters as mentioned, thermometers, test strips and pH meters. I know some who use microscopes to count yeast cells and others who have access to work based lab equipment which they utilise for beer quality analysis.


----------



## yoboseyo (30/6/16)

manticle said:


> I do contend that calling an acceptance of scientific ideas an act of faith misconstrues the definition of faith and misunderstands the distinction between scientific method and faith.


Probably not faith but I wouldn't categorize it as science either. Being able to corroborate your findings is a part of the scientific method. Not saying beer making isn't scientific, but the homebrewing process isn't exactly following the scientific method.

The ultimate test is whether your beer tastes any good to you, and applying science to improve it is just a means of doing that. But the effort of making objectively the best beer (assuming it exists) would be fruitless due to your really shitty measuring stick, but the results of what you get on that measuring stick is self evident and doesn't need to be corroborated.

And this is what most homebrewers do - they apply what their understanding of science until they get a palatable product, and past that point, they lack the incentive and the tools to improve their understanding and their product


----------



## peteru (30/6/16)

I can see how this line of reasoning can head down the philosophical path and even take on a "religious" angle.

However, at the end of the day a pragmatic approach is needed when the objective is to produce a reasonable quantity of product you can consume. Preferably in a cost effective and timely fashion using "backyard technology."

I take most of the stuff I see on blogs and forums as different opinions and lines of investigation. The experiments are very much a case of "I tinkered to satisfy my curiosity." rather than "I am doing real science." More often or not, publishing such information is a case of trying to stimulate conversation and the exchange of ideas, which is not a bad idea. It would be foolish to mistake this for real science. As anyone with a science degree would know, contributing new knowledge to a discipline is hard work. Having your work picked apart, analysed, examined, reviewed, criticised, revised, modified and possibly rejected is a normal part of the scientific process. The job of the scientist is to understand something and build a bulletproof case for the theories and postulations one comes up with. That's not something that happens over the course of a weekend or a month. Real science takes lots and lots of failures, persistence and a surprisingly long amount of time. Historically, many scientific discoveries or theories were not commonly accepted until the scientists were dead and have spent their entire lives working on a particular subject. Take gravity waves as an example - Einstein has been dead for a while and it's only now that we can accept his theory.

tl;dr - It would be foolish to treat blogs and forums as sources of scientific information. It's more like arts and crafts at the local community college.


----------



## manticle (30/6/16)

yoboseyo said:


> Probably not faith but I wouldn't categorize it as science either. Being able to corroborate your findings is a part of the scientific method. Not saying beer making isn't scientific, but the homebrewing process isn't exactly following the scientific method.
> 
> The ultimate test is whether your beer tastes any good to you, and applying science to improve it is just a means of doing that. But the effort of making objectively the best beer (assuming it exists) would be fruitless due to your really shitty measuring stick, but the results of what you get on that measuring stick is self evident and doesn't need to be corroborated.
> 
> And this is what most homebrewers do - they apply what their understanding of science until they get a palatable product, and past that point, they lack the incentive and the tools to improve their understanding and their product



You wouldn't call accepting a scientific idea science? So taking antibiotics for a bacterial chest infection or bandaging a wound is unscientific until you can replicate the model in your own lab? It is impossible to test and retest every single idea for yourself in any meaningful way. I really feel this line of argument is reaching - it's the same basic debate creationists use to criticise evolution for being a theory, just like theirs. It is not up to iindividuals to run their own tests before accepting science - it is up to those providing the evidence to do it in a way that can be tested and replicated again and again and again. Once that is done, it will be accepted until such time as that replication is either not forthcoming or another more likely mechanism is shown to be the influential/deciding factor. 

I absolutely agree tasting your own beer is of utmost importance and trying your own methods and processes likewise - my argument is that brulosophy replaces mountains of evidence in one direction with insubstantial evidence in another and until YOU try what they say and evaluate using your palate, you're still relying on what someone else says - therefore as much a leap of faith or whatever as any other approach, if not more. I have personally tried (not always deliberately) some of the methods described in brulosophy and most times my own palate disagrees with their findings.


----------



## peteru (30/6/16)

manticle said:


> I have personally tried (not always deliberately) some of the methods described in brulosophy and most times my own palate disagrees with their findings.


Well, that sounds a lot like the beginnings of the scientific process. If they publish the details of the experiment and their findings, then you go and replicate that experiment, you're on the path to science. The parts that are missing are repeatability, large enough sample population, controlled variables and peer review.

Who knows, perhaps one of these articles will inspire an honours student or even a postgraduate to do some real science and write a thesis on a subject that has not been already researched. There is nothing wrong with challenging the status quo, but given that beer making processes have been continuously improved for centuries by a significant number of people, it'll be hard work to come up with something better and have it accepted.

Also, acceptance of scientific theory does not necessarily translate into acceptance in industry practice. Once you have the science, you need to back it up with engineering skills to actually build a process that is actually workable in practical situations.


----------



## MHB (30/6/16)

FFS what do you think has been filling professional brewing literature for the last 100 years!
Do you think people haven't sat down and recorded the effects of mash time, pH, Ca levels... as a result brewing has moved from a 400 minute cycle to about half that, improved hygiene and made the best beer in history (well given us that option).
The basic research was done by people now dead of old age, the effects of most of the basic variables have been long quantified, and the hard won results are recorded so people can learn from them and build on those basics. There are now breweries boiling for 45 minutes (it was 120 minutes a generation ago) but in special systems that cost millions (seriously) because energy is a big variable cost in brewing.

I've been here for a bit over 10 years, every couple of months someone reinvents brewing and wants to throw out what we know and replace it with invariably a cheaper, quicker, cheaper, lazier, cheaper... way to bang out beer that must be just as good cos his mates can choke it down when its free.

Grow the **** up learn some basic brewing, if you are too tight to buy a good book or two go to the IBD learning resources for good free information, Braukaiser, even read Palmers Book will all help take you in the direction of brewing better.

When you know a little of the basics of what is happening in the brewing process, it gets a lot easier to filter complete crap out of the equation, and help to stop people being mesmerised by how tight their pucker can get.

Time for me to get way the hell out of this thread - the BS is just way too deep.
M


----------



## manticle (30/6/16)

peteru said:


> Well, that sounds a lot like the beginnings of the scientific process. If they publish the details of the experiment and their findings, then you go and replicate that experiment, you're on the path to science. The parts that are missing are repeatability, large enough sample population, controlled variables and peer review.
> 
> Who knows, perhaps one of these articles will inspire an honours student or even a postgraduate to do some real science and write a thesis on a subject that has not been already researched. There is nothing wrong with challenging the status quo, but given that beer making processes have been continuously improved for centuries by a significant number of people, it'll be hard work to come up with something better and have it accepted.
> 
> Also, acceptance of scientific theory does not necessarily translate into acceptance in industry practice. Once you have the science, you need to back it up with engineering skills to actually build a process that is actually workable in practical situations.



Except that that process has long since been begun. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As for engineering - pretty sure that's keeping up with modern brewing science.

MHB or Klangers can confirm (if MHB hasn't headed for the beach in disgust).


----------



## Zorco (30/6/16)

peteru said:


> tl;dr - It would be foolish to treat blogs and forums as sources of scientific information. It's more like arts and crafts at the local community college.


But there are quality thinkers on this forum. And brewing tends to filter out deadheads. AHB is a more than reasonable source of information. Should we create a scientific information thread which educated people on the scientific method and handles submission from brewers applying scientific reasoning then we do not only brewing a service, but our entire society.


----------



## GalBrew (30/6/16)

zorsoc_cosdog said:


> But there are quality thinkers on this forum.
> 
> And brewing tends to filter out deadheads.


On the first point there are a few left, but there used to be many more. 

On the second point, that is unfortunately completely incorrect. There are plenty of people around here that know enough to get into trouble but not enough to know what they are talking about. There are whole threads of cringeworthy material on here, but hey that's the Internet for you.

I find it interesting that there are sooooo many home brewers that want to completely reinvent the wheel, like they are a revolutionary genius. It's a bit laughable after a while. People waste their time on 'tweaking' marginal variables in their process at best, while ignoring the fundamentals as they aren't 'cool/trendy/whatever'.


----------



## yoboseyo (30/6/16)

manticle said:


> You wouldn't call accepting a scientific idea science? So taking antibiotics for a bacterial chest infection or bandaging a wound is unscientific until you can replicate the model in your own lab? It is impossible to test and retest every single idea for yourself in any meaningful way. I really feel this line of argument is reaching - it's the same basic debate creationists use to criticise evolution for being a theory, just like theirs. It is not up to iindividuals to run their own tests before accepting science - it is up to those providing the evidence to do it in a way that can be tested and replicated again and again and again. Once that is done, it will be accepted until such time as that replication is either not forthcoming or another more likely mechanism is shown to be the influential/deciding factor.


The difference is that clinical trials for medicine are conducted for the purpose of predicting its effectiveness in the real world when its applied in the same conditions as in the trial. When it comes to brewing, where they have the means to conduct R&D to improve their processes, i.e, commercial breweries, is not always applicable to homebrew, and their goals are different so the scientific method applied to both instances follow different paradigms - they are much more about creating a consistent product than an objectively good product, and there's very little good science when it comes to what flavours are favourable and thresholds at which they are distinguishable, which is important for homebrewers.


----------



## peteru (30/6/16)

I don't see the reason to get so heated up about other people doing it their own way. I certainly don't see the blogs and forum posts as some kind of a gospel and I don't view those people describing their experiences as some kind of a revolution that tries to convert everyone. I think you are probably getting frustrated because you view the posts that detail "what I did on the weekend" as an attempt at trying to undermine the existing body of knowledge and replace it with their point of view. If I was taking that point of view, I too would be worked up about their efforts.

However, in the age of the Internet, one very much has to have the ability to do critical research and assume that the vast amount of information being "published" on the Internet are personal opinions.

I don't think we disagree about the fundamentals here, but perhaps we have a different view about tolerating other people's opinions. I'm quite OK with other people being wrong about something and being happy in their ignorance, as long as they give me the same courtesy and let me have my opinion.


----------



## klangers (30/6/16)

Not being able to measure variables does not negate the value of considering them. I cannot measure, nor verify, the varying effect of gravity between items of varying masses with the tools I have at home. I hence have no way of personally verifying Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Lord Cavendish did this experiment with two large lead balls hanging on chains, and measured the displacement as they were brought near each other. I make sure, however, that I do take Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation into account for my engineering calculations.
Taste can be measured and predicted scientifically, albeit requires expensive kit
People may see dismissal of science (that they have spent a long time studying) as disrespect to their passion/expertise, and hence may take it personally.


----------



## Zorco (30/6/16)

GalBrew said:


> On the second point, that is unfortunately completely incorrect.
> 
> I find it interesting that there are sooooo......


deadhead

I see what you did and I know why. But my statement is correct the way it is. You needed to choose another name for the collective referred to in the rest of your prose.


----------



## GalBrew (30/6/16)

zorsoc_cosdog said:


> deadhead
> 
> I see what you did and I know why. But my statement is correct the way it is. You needed to choose another name for the collective referred to in the rest of your prose.


I'll let you pick.


----------



## barls (30/6/16)

play nice all. myself and the rest of the moderation team are watching.


----------



## Zorco (30/6/16)

It has become a little tense, but Everything is going to be OK. :icon_cheers: 



GalBrew said:


> People waste their time on 'tweaking' marginal variables in their process at best, while ignoring the fundamentals as they aren't 'cool/trendy/whatever'.


I like to think of these sort of 'revolutionaries' as people who are starting to develop a sense of ownership over their brewing. To me, they look more like people trying to stand out, or be acknowledged. 

And they should be. This is a great craft. Let their beers be judged and see how they fare. 

When I've dialed in my process, adjust a parameter in a deliberate way and sense the desired result - makes me bloody stoked. Yep, sure I tell my little circle of brew mates. 

Maybe 'egotist', 'presumptuous', or perhaps 'proud' for the people you talk about.


The loss here is that MHB, Klangers and GalBrew are wound up in a way that might make them not want to help other brewers out.

This I'd want to avoid at all cost.

Cheers all.


----------



## GalBrew (30/6/16)

zorsoc_cosdog said:


> It has become a little tense, but Everything is going to be OK. :icon_cheers:
> 
> 
> I like to think of these sort of 'revolutionaries' as people who are starting to develop a sense of ownership over their brewing. To me, they look more like people trying to stand out, or be acknowledged.
> ...


I'm not that wound up, but it would be nice if people had a fundamental understanding of the theory and process before trying to reinvent things. I personally researched and read for a year before I brewed my first batch. The information (good information that is) is so easy to get these days and people rely on the 'rubbish' found all over the web. 

You are right about one thing though, I struggle to muster the energy to help out when people can't even be bothered reading the free copy of Palmers book or the Yeast book, or whatever (and you can tell by the questions). But they will be building a PLC to run their brewery or a PID controller for their HLT. 

Anyway, carry on......


----------



## manticle (30/6/16)

yoboseyo said:


> The difference is that clinical trials for medicine are conducted for the purpose of predicting its effectiveness in the real world when its applied in the same conditions as in the trial. When it comes to brewing, where they have the means to conduct R&D to improve their processes, i.e, commercial breweries, is not always applicable to homebrew, and their goals are different so the scientific method applied to both instances follow different paradigms - they are much more about creating a consistent product than an objectively good product, and there's very little good science when it comes to what flavours are favourable and thresholds at which they are distinguishable, which is important for homebrewers.


I don't think brewing science and medical science are as different as you make out. You might as well contend that medicine isn't valid in the real world because there's no real way of guaging whether people 'feel better'.

Leaving that aside for a moment and going back to my my original point - if you call accepting a long history of brewing science as accepting dogma or a leap of faith, why accept Marshall and his exbeeriments carried out under dubious circumstances on the other side of the world?

I'm all in favour of people trying what works for them. Always have been, always will be. If someone else has tried it 8 billion times and quantified it, don't be surprised when it works out you've flogged a dead horse though.

@peteru : I'm in favour of an educated opinion over simply an opinion.

Everyone's entitled to have an opinion but they're not entitled to expect it to automatically carry any weight.


----------



## Vini2ton (30/6/16)

Back to welly2's topic. To make good beer I don't need to read page after page of highly intelligent and I'm sure very nice people vying for the "Smarty-pants Cup".


----------



## peteru (30/6/16)

manticle said:


> @peteru : I'm in favour of an educated opinion over simply an opinion.


Then we are in agreement. Quality of content matters.




manticle said:


> Everyone's entitled to have an opinion but they're not entitled to expect it to automatically carry any weight.


Yes, the old adage: Respect has to be earned.

I think we pretty much agree on most things here and perhaps the form of communication (forum posts) is not quite fluid enough to establish that. I'm pretty sure that in a face to face setting over a few good beers, we'd be singing the same tune.


----------



## manticle (30/6/16)

Only if that tune is blood promise.
Or amber rain.


----------



## klangers (1/7/16)

For the record I'm not wound up at all. 

If my previous post came across as passive-aggressive, it most certainly wasn't intended to be. It was my guess on what caused those involved to get heated.


----------

