# Brulosophy



## Goose (31/5/15)

I am sure alot of people here read up on the Brulosophy website and I am just curious what you think of their process experiments ?

I've just glanced through the process variables they've analysed and amazed by the lack of statistically significant effect of most the variables they have looked at. Granted, the results of the experiements are all subjective but those opinions are analysed for significant statistical variance, ie versus what simple chance would result.

If they are correct, we could get away with a mash for only 30 minutes, we'd only boil for 30 mins to save energy, wouldn't bother with irish moss or about the amount of trub that finds its way into the fermenter, and then splash the crap out of the wort for fun because hot side aeration doesnt matter. We need not bother to aerate our wort or bother with yeast starters because a single vial works fine in the end. We can also just use slurry as opposed to a clean starter. Stu was right about not needing to hydrate our dried yeast, just spinkle it on and away you go. Dont worry about pitching temperature. Screw the secondary, it has no effect. Pressurised fermentation has no impact on the final result, and also dont bother double dry hopping.

I realise this is one collective reporting results of single at home experiments and , but it is an awesome compendium and far more scientific than interpreting opinion from a thousand individual homebrewers views.

I am not for a minute suggesting it is right to adjust our faithful regime because I think alot of how we do it is about minimising the risk of making an inferior product so what we do likely includes a shitload of insurance to mitigate the things we know can go wrong in our process. Nonetheless very interesting.


Brulosophy Process experiments.


Wort Aeration – Pt. 1: Shaken vs. Nothing No
Water Chemistry – Pt. 2: Messing with Minerals Yes
Fermentation Temperature – Pt. 2: English Ale Yes
Single vs. Double Dry Hop No
Under Pressure: The Impact of High(er) Pressure Fermentations No
Yeast Pitch Rate: Single Vial vs. Yeast Starter No
Water Chemistry – Pt. 1: Mash Manipulation Yes
The Impact of Kettle Trub – Pt. 2: Vienna Lager No
The Irish Moss Effect No
The Impact of Boil Length: Ale | 30 minute vs. 60 minute No
Sloppy Slurry vs. Clean Starter No
Fermentation Temperature – Part 1: 58°F vs. Ambient (68-72°F) Dubious
The Temp At Which We Pitch No
Is Hot-Side Aeration Fact or Fiction? No
Sprinkled vs. Rehydrated Dry Yeast No
Does Mash Length Matter? :: 60 Min vs. 30 Min Mash No
Primary-only vs. Transfer to Secondary No
Ultimate Single Vessel Brewing :: Ditching the Carboy No
Fresh vs. Harvested Yeast No
The Great Trub exBEERiment :: High Trub vs. Low Trub Yes


----------



## Cervantes (31/5/15)

I'll certainly give it a look when I get some time...............


----------



## plateofboxes (31/5/15)

The thing that comes up all the time with the Brulosopher and Team's results, is they are usually comparing only one variable, inside a very well controlled and good process-driven brewing regime. i.e. They pretty much show that with everything else being perfect, you can get away with one thing (e.g. ferm temp) being off. The Brulosopher (is it Marshall?) has a very controlled and consistent brewing style, so single variations aren't going to change his beers that much.

I think if you started combining a few factors such as underpitching with high temps, and little oxygenation, compared to a *perfect* batch, you'd start to get clinically significant differences.


----------



## warra48 (31/5/15)

I'd hate to think how bad my beer would be on the 10th or more consecutive repitch of slurry from the previous batch.


----------



## Bribie G (31/5/15)

I regularly do 30 minute boils, works very well.


----------



## Rocker1986 (31/5/15)

I love that blog. I haven't really changed much of my process as a result of it, but it is quite interesting to read through. The biggest process change I've made as a result of reading that blog is ditching the long drawn out process for brewing lagers. Tasted the first crack at this quick method yesterday and while the beer needs another 2 or 3 weeks in the bottle, the early tasting was very promising.

I suppose the thing to remember is, it is only one guy doing these experiments; it is a single data point (or a couple more now but you get my drift). If say, 1000 people did the same experiment and all reported similar findings then it would hold more weight. And also only changing one variable probably won't have a huge impact on the beer. As plateofboxes said, if a few less than desirable processes were combined all in one batch, the outcome may well be more negative than only doing one.


----------



## Goose (31/5/15)

Bribie G said:


> I regularly do 30 minute boils, works very well.


 next step is to only do a 30 minute mash.... ?


----------



## manticle (31/5/15)

I do 30 min mash for my milds.
I like the challenge to conventional brewing wisdom but am also in the camp that combining one or more of these would be more telling.
Also most of the beers seem like well hopped beers. An alt, kolsch or pils would be interesting. Also curious that in all of those, he hasn't tried no chill.


----------



## Rocker1986 (31/5/15)

There was a no chill experiment posted on there a while back but you have to search through the blog posts to find it I think. It wasn't actually him who did it, it was a friend of his. The basic gist of it was that he brewed using the no chill method for a whole year but didn't tell anybody, to see if they could pick up any differences when they were drinking the beers.

http://brulosophy.com/2015/02/09/a-year-of-no-chill-lessons-from-a-secret-xbmt/


----------



## manticle (31/5/15)

I was surprised not to see it mentioned so thanks for that link.


----------



## boybrewer (31/5/15)

The real question with the no-chill that he did for the more hop forward beers is , did he stick with the standard 60 min hop edition 10 min and so on , or did he research enough to find out that for these types of hoppy beers need a reduced time for the hop additions like 10 min for bittering and then add at flame out for the aroma and flavour etc .


----------



## Cervantes (31/5/15)

beer belly said:


> The real question with the no-chill that he did for the more hop forward beers is , did he stick with the standard 60 min hop edition 10 min and so on , or did he research enough to find out that for these types of hoppy beers need a reduced time for the hop additions like 10 min for bittering and then add at flame out for the aroma and flavour etc .


There is a No Chill hop adjustment table pictured in the article, but he doesn't seem to make any reference to it.

I was also interested that he mentioned that his "No Chill" beers didn't drop as clear, as that's also been my experience with "No Chilling"


----------



## Rocker1986 (1/6/15)

I'm not sure why the table would bother with bittering addition adjustments. The difference in bitterness extracted from boiling the hops for 80 mins as opposed to 60 mins is sweet FA really. The adjustment theory is aimed at late kettle additions. And while I understand the idea behind it, the idea that "one size fits all" just doesn't ring true. It seems to be based on the idea that brewers who chill their wort always do so immediately after flameout, which simply isn't the case. They could be leaving the wort for 20 or 30 minutes before chilling it. The AA% of the hops would have an effect too I'd imagine. There are too many variables to simply stick a standardised formula on it. Work out what works best for your own situation and stick with that, would be my advice.

In my personal experience I've never bothered adjusting hop additions for no-chill and no beer has ever turned out more bitter than expected or with the weird flavours described in that article. Granted, I've never brewed an IPA, but I have done plenty of APAs with no issues. Maybe it's because I generally use low AA% hops in my late additions, I don't know. I've also experienced varying degrees of haze in my beers. Some come out quite clear, others rather hazy. Although that should be a thing of the past now that I've started using Polyclar during CCing.


----------



## MHB (1/6/15)

[SIZE=medium]I find this type of thinking seriously confusing, having studied brewing; I like to think I understand at least the basics of what each step in the brewing process does. This information isn’t a secret in fact it’s widely available, even free if you aren’t inclined to invest in a couple of good text books.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]There is a lot of research done into brewing, both in breweries and at a university level. When you think that breweries still do 60 minute (or longer) mashes and 60-90 minute boils are still the norm.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]The idea that every trained brewer in the world is too stupid to realise that they can halve the biggest energy expenditure in their breweries is in the least just a little arrogant and mildly offensive.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Admittedly in a world where over 90% of the beer produced is “Standard Beer” (10-12oP, 20-30IBU, >10EBC), quite a lot of the literature isn’t directly related to small brewing. There has however been plenty done that does relate directly to what I hope we are trying to achieve.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]If you visit the IBD website and read the free learning resources relating to mashing and wort boiling I think you would be in a better position to evaluate some of the stuff being posted.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Mark[/SIZE]


----------



## Mattwa (1/6/15)

I think Marshall goes out of his way most of the time to point out that it is a single data point on a system much simpler and of a much smaller scale than a commercial brewery. I don't think it's illogical to believe that scale is a factor in a lot of these experiments.

I don't think anyone is implying that trained brewers are stupid. They are experiments in a home brewery and should be read as such.


----------



## Rocker1986 (1/6/15)

I also think a lot of the point behind it all is that while most of our processes are a direct result of learning from commercial processes, not all of them translate to a home brew situation, or, they don't have the same effect in home brewing as they would on a massive commercial scale brewery.

From my reading of it, the blog and the experimenting is more about making home brewing as simple and efficient as possible - if there is a simpler process that can be used on a home brew scale that works just as good as or better than the "traditional" process, then why not use it? If it doesn't work or produces a more detrimental outcome then it gets shelved. It's not implying that trained brewers are stupid, it's just trying to find alternative simpler methods that work on a home brew scale.

Well that's how I see it anyway.


----------



## MHB (1/6/15)

[SIZE=medium]Actually, I do think its illogical![/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Mashing is mashing whatever the scale, remember that the values reported on every malts COA are the result of a 50g Congress Mash.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]The same reactions take place and the same enzymes are involved, they respond the same to liquor concentrations temperature, pH ... as does a large mash.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Same for a boil, again the extract, protein content, colour, pH ... all respond the same in a small and large batch, provided conditions are the same.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]If you understand what is happening in a mash or a boil, I can’t believe anyone would be suggesting that 30/30 minute mash/boil is going to give you better beer.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]I'm not just regurgitating shit from books.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Having brewed for a fairly long time and being of a very experimental bent, I have tried short boils and mashes (very long and complex ones to) my default process is 60 minute mash and 90 minute boil, because I get better beer and making better beer is my intention.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Some beers would require longer or shorter mashes/boils but that would be a decision based on both knowledge and experience. I have no interest on decisions based on making cheaper faster beer – just better beer.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Mark[/SIZE]


----------



## Mattwa (1/6/15)

Are you suggesting that no one should do these kinds of experiments because you've tried them all and they didn't work?

Who's being arrogant now?


----------



## Forever Wort (1/6/15)

Brulosophy is a good blog because of what it does but its results - those that end up having statistic significance - have never once surprised me. So it preaches to the converted for me, but there is always the possibility of some new and exciting finding being discovered. I dislike the revenue-raising style of the posts with all the sponsored links; but if that's the only way the author can find the time to maintain the blog then I can put up with it. It's a philosophical thing; you home brew because you love it, you _spend _to do it. If you are trying to make money from it then it becomes something else; you're in business.


----------



## MHB (1/6/15)

Mattwa said:


> Are you suggesting that no one should do these kinds of experiments because you've tried them all and they didn't work?
> 
> Who's being arrogant now?


[SIZE=medium]Not at all, but an experiment must have a clearly understood goal. I firmly believe that if you have a clear understanding of the processes you can at least look at the results critically and evaluate the outcomes objectively.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]For as long as I have been brewing and reading fora someone has always been doing experiments (often very badly designed ones) that point out the futility of brewing in what is a fairly conventional manner. What has become the conventional method of brewing is based on hundreds of years or experience and thousands of well designed experiments, by qualified researchers, published in peer reviewed scientific papers.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Compared to what are often very questionable “experiments” with results based on very subjective opinions.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]There is a very clear trend among this type of “experiment” to report that any process that is faster and/or cheaper is clearly better.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Based on both experience and a little knowledge, I for one have to question those results.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Always more than happy to discuss brewing, but let’s stick to playing the ball not the man shall we.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Mark[/SIZE]


----------



## Mattwa (1/6/15)

I'm sorry if that seemed overly personal, but it's this "Argument from Authority" fallacy that really gets my goat.

I happen to think that the Brulosophy experiments are very well designed with a clearly stated aim and published method of gathering results. Show me a university or large brewhouse doing these kinds of single variable experiments on a homebrew scale and I'll gladly read their peer-reviewed articles.

And to say that scale isn't important _is_ illogical. There are all sorts of variables that change when scaling up. Even his holiness John Palmer concedes that the need for a secondary in homebrewing was based on the practices of commercial breweries, but the same pressures and temperatures are not the same on a home-brew scale, and therefore secondaries are generally not necessary in home breweries.

Large breweries also have different motivations, i.e financial. Maybe it makes more financial sense to do something in one way at a brewery that would be of very little benefit financially or otherwise in a home brewery.

If these generally accepted practices can be shown to be unnecessary on the scale that we brew, then what harm is there in testing them? I can see only benefits, even if it makes you want to test it yourself, then surely that's a good thing. I don't think it's true that every avenue has been explored in homebrewing and if someone is taking the time to test these things (with all the caveats) then I'm all for it.


----------



## InterCooL (4/6/15)

I love Marshall's blog. If we applied the same criticism voiced here regarding his blog then no one would have come up with no chilling. I'm glad people test ideas. Not being able to challenge accepted views on a subject is nothing short of a cult mentality


----------



## Killer Brew (10/6/15)

I like the fact that someone is challenging the norm and looking for better ways. To be honest, for me, most of the techniques explored to speed up brewing day are of little interest. Along with consumption it is my favourite part of my hobby!

However the work done on quick lagering is of great interest as it potentially frees up my fermentation fridge a lot earlier and allows me to brew more often. There is also a degree of logic behind the traditional method not having the access to temp control we now have so there is a marked change in a variable that warrants revisiting the process. Has anyone here tried it and ideally have side by side results to share?


----------



## Rocker1986 (10/6/15)

I don't have any side by side results unfortunately, as I only read up on it recently and long after my last lager batch was gone. However, my latest lager batch was fermented using the quick process, and while I think it could use another 2 or 3 weeks in the bottle, initial impressions are positive from a process point of view.

It wasn't the greatest recipe in the world though, bit of a throw together what I could at the time sorta thing. This one has turned out too sweet, for me anyway, and I am putting it down to using 1kg Munich II in it. The first bottle I tried wasn't fully carbed either (always have a sneaky one week taster), so that didn't help. Having said that, it is improving; as the carbonation level increases, the perceived sweetness seems to be dropping, and the beer is much more enjoyable. I wouldn't put these issues down to the process though, I do believe it was the recipe that contributed to it.

Either way, I'm looking forward to trying it out again on the next batch, which was brewed to my intended recipe. If it turns out well, and to my expectation of it, then I reckon I'll be a convert to the quick method.


----------



## Mattwa (10/6/15)

I currently have a beer fermenting using the Fast Lager profile on my BrewPi.

I haven't attempted too many lagers because of the time commitment so I don't really have the opportunity for a side by side, but I think if this works out and the beer is anywhere on the drinkable to good area of the scale, then it will mean I can do lagers more often.


----------



## GalBrew (10/6/15)

I brewed a Dortmunder last year using this method of fermentation. I can tell you it works great, the beer got 3rd place at AABC.


----------



## Killer Brew (10/6/15)

Righto, sounds like I would get a drinkable beer and it is worth a try at least. Hard to know though if the beer would have been better using the traditional process but maybe some day I will have the equipment and time to do a side by side comparison.


----------



## drsmurto (10/6/15)

InterCooL said:


> I love Marshall's blog. If we applied the same criticism voiced here regarding his blog then no one would have come up with no chilling. I'm glad people test ideas. Not being able to challenge accepted views on a subject is nothing short of a cult mentality


No chill is not an AHB invention. It is just yet another case of people reinventing the wheel. The name 'no chill' is probably only the new part of the idea. Homebrewers were not chilling their worts long before AHB existed. Fresh wort kits were manufactured using this method before AHB. My first few AGs didn't involve chilling but at the time there wasn't a club for people who didn't chill. Same goes for BIAB.

Rapid chilling of worts is a much newer brewing method than not chilling or slow chilling.

As for the argument of peer reviewed research not being relevant to home scale brewing, hilarious. What scale do you think a scientist works on in a lab? Perhaps a few of the posters in this thread would be better off doing there searches at the Journal of the Institute of Brewing rather than google/AHB. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2050-0416

I do wine chemistry research. On a lab scale, sub litres up to 5L in the lab. The logic of some seems to suggest what I do is irrelevant to the wine industry where volumes of 1,000,000L are not uncommon. Thankfully, the wine industry is not that naïve.


----------



## Mattwa (10/6/15)

DrSmurto said:


> As for the argument of peer reviewed research not being relevant to home scale brewing, hilarious. What scale do you think a scientist works on in a lab? Perhaps a few of the posters in this thread would be better off doing there searches at the Journal of the Institute of Brewing rather than google/AHB. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2050-0416
> 
> I do wine chemistry research. On a lab scale, sub litres up to 5L in the lab. The logic of some seems to suggest what I do is irrelevant to the wine industry where volumes of 1,000,000L are not uncommon. Thankfully, the wine industry is not that naïve.


I assume this is aimed at my earlier post. I did not state that peer reviewed research is not relevant to home-brewing. What I did say is that scale is a factor that should be taken into account and peer reviewed research is normally aimed at large scale production. I am not suggesting that the laws of physics are different in the home-brewery, but that certain factors may not be as relevant on that scale. For instance Autolysis and secondaries as I mentioned. 

Something else I've been thinking is that ingredients change, equipment changes - every part of the process should be open to scrutiny.

I've got to say I'm really shocked at some of the brewers here being so up in arms at these experiments. 

BTW DrSmurto, I will definitely be reading some of the articles in Journal you linked to. I don't see why blogs and Journals can't complement each other in the understanding of this hobby.


----------



## Killer Brew (10/6/15)

DrSmurto said:


> No chill is not an AHB invention. It is just yet another case of people reinventing the wheel. The name 'no chill' is probably only the new part of the idea. Homebrewers were not chilling their worts long before AHB existed. Fresh wort kits were manufactured using this method before AHB. My first few AGs didn't involve chilling but at the time there wasn't a club for people who didn't chill. Same goes for BIAB.
> 
> Rapid chilling of worts is a much newer brewing method than not chilling or slow chilling.
> 
> ...


Interesting link, thanks.

While you are here Doc I would be very interested in your views on the merits, or otherwise, of the fast lagering process.


----------



## drsmurto (10/6/15)

I'm not up in arms, I'm just very wary of bad science and anecdotes being palmed off as someone's legitimate experiments rather than simply anecdotes.

You have missed some of my point. The peer reviewed literature on brewing is examining the science of brewing. This is about understanding the science. Some of the research is for large scale production but given the scale of laboratory research it is definitely applicable to home scale brewing. Your implication is that research only exists for mass production of products. That's ridiculous.

All aspects of the science are always open to scrutiny, that is the very basis of science, nothing is off limits. It's not a religion whereby blind faith trumps observation.

Why are autolysis and secondary fermentation not relevant on different scales?

As for fast lagering, not sure what the fuss is about. I wasn't aware of a rule or law that requires people to ferment/condition/lager using any 1 technique. Commercial breweries aren't going to leave a beer in tank any longer than it needs so it makes sense they speed up the process. No reason you can't do the same at home. Commercial breweries will be constantly analysing the beer for a number of chemical markers, diacetyl and acetaldehyde the main 2. Clarity/turbidity/yeast cell count. Once they drop below a set threshold the beer is ready. You can do the same by simply tasting the beers as it conditions. Remember also that on commercial scale there are a number of additives used to speed up many of the processes.

I tend to wait a little later in primary before increasing the temperature, ale or lager, but it is something I always do to speed up the cleanup process. Taste the beer regularly. If it tastes clean and ready then it is. No need to lager/condition for months unless you want to. I lager in kegs rather in plastic to avoid oxygen which is the enemy of beer in most styles.

I often have low alcohol ales in the glass 4-5 days after milling the grain. Lagers I take my time with because I can rather than for any reason. Much like the fact I won't brew a lager without doing at least one decoction. It's my beer, my rules and the rules change depending on my mood.


----------



## Mattwa (10/6/15)

DrSmurto said:


> I'm not up in arms, I'm just very wary of bad science and anecdotes being palmed off as someone's legitimate experiments rather than simply anecdotes.
> 
> You have missed some of my point. The peer reviewed literature on brewing is examining the science of brewing. This is about understanding the science. Some of the research is for large scale production but given the scale of laboratory research it is definitely applicable to home scale brewing. Your implication is that research only exists for mass production of products. That's ridiculous.


I'd be interested in you commenting directly on the methodology used in the blog rather than writing it off as simply an anecdote. Nobody is claiming that this blog will replace the scientific research being done into brewing. 

I don't believe I implied that research _only_ exists for mass production, but are you telling me that all this research isn't primarily geared towards mass production? Maybe we can park the word ridiculous and actually read what's written.




DrSmurto said:


> Why are autolysis and secondary fermentation not relevant on different scales?


I'm referring to this: http://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=176837


----------



## drsmurto (10/6/15)

Mattwa said:


> I assume this is aimed at my earlier post. I did not state that peer reviewed research is not relevant to home-brewing. What I did say is that scale is a factor that should be taken into account and peer reviewed research is normally aimed at large scale production. I am not suggesting that the laws of physics are different in the home-brewery, but that certain factors may not be as relevant on that scale. For instance Autolysis and secondaries as I mentioned.
> 
> Something else I've been thinking is that ingredients change, equipment changes - every part of the process should be open to scrutiny.
> 
> ...


Not sure why I need to remind you of your own words.

In a lab, the scientists will work on scales applicable to homebrewing to begin with. Smaller even. So yes, it is entirely applicable to the homebrewing scale.

Not a fan of science? Or just don't understand it so feel the need to misrepresent it?

It's been far too long since I linked to one of my favourite blog sites and since blogs seem to do it for you have a read of this one - http://thingsboganslike.com/2010/03/03/97-anti-intellectualism/


----------



## Mattwa (10/6/15)

Maybe you can also remind me of the difference between "normally" and "only". 

And I suppose large wineries take your small batch lab results and apply them immediately to their 1,000,000l batches without any concern to how they might play out on a large scale. That seems crazy to me, but I'm not a winemaker.

No need to get all het up. As I said no-one is suggesting that a blog can replace peer reviewed research into brewing. Where this blog comes in is doing simple single-variable experiments on a home-brew scale with equipment commonly used in homebrewing using what seems to me a pretty sound methodology. Any brewer that permanently changes their processes based on what they've read on a blog alone is asking for trouble. But if they try something and find it shortens their brew-day or improves clarity (or whatever), without affecting the quality of their beer, then I call that a win.

Sure it isn't repeated a hundred times and it's a single data-point (as pointed out on pretty much every post) but it's interesting to me and lots of others.

As Mark suggested above, let's not play the man here. I happen to have a science degree and am married to a research chemist, but hey, if it makes it easier for you to write me off then so be it.


----------



## MHB (10/6/15)

Dr S is saying all the things I wanted to say, just a lot more politely!
M


----------



## Mattwa (10/6/15)

I wouldn't say it's been particularly polite.


----------



## MHB (10/6/15)

Actually I think remarkable constraint has been shown, as well several attempts to provide quality information, in the face of persistent reiteration of your assertion that one mans opinion that his beer tastes OK to him and his mates demonstrates that he is doing good brewing experiments.

Dr Smurto and I were both here during the inception of brew in a bag and no-chill, I think if you went back and read the original posts you would see that both of us contributed to the development of both processes. There isn't an anti new idea agenda just a lot of experience and clearly a lot more knowledge of brewing science suggesting that you need to understand why and how brewing works before you try to reinvent it.

The biggest problem I have is with the notion that a variable can be considered in isolation. Take the idea that you can mash for 30 minutes, you can but that will change the nature of your wort, Beer is a natural process that almost wants to happen so that one change may not have a big impact. Do a 30 minute boil again in isolation it might not have a big impact on a well mashed wort.
BUT - do both together and the "Minor" changes accumulate, the beer will be noticeably different - the old how many corners can you cut off a square before it looks more like a circle.
Same applies to every step in the brewing process, they are all interdependent the finished beer is the culmination of all the ingredients and processes used during its production. Or as I have said before - everything you do ends up in the glass.

My aim is to make the best beer I can, the opposite of focusing on how pissed you can get for the minimum effort and expense.
If you want to make better beer there are plenty here who will help you - likewise for the converse.

Mark


----------



## Mattwa (10/6/15)

Being on a forum for a long time does not make you the arbiter of who understands the science of brewing and who does not. Hubris is not an attractive character trait.

I'm glad you and the good Dr are here to share your experience and knowledge, but that does not give you some god given power to pass judgement on every little home brew related thing.

It's beginning to dawn on my obviously dull brain that neither of you have actually read the blog, or if you have you wilfully misunderstood it for trying to be something it isn't. Neither of you have actually commented on the content at all.


----------



## MHB (10/6/15)

CBA


----------



## Newy (10/6/15)

Well...

I like Brulosophy, even got the shirt to prove it 

I have incorporated quite a few of his hints and tips into my brewing and they have only improved my results.

Cheers Brulosopher!


----------



## Newy (10/6/15)

Oh, and his Blond Ale is delicious!!


----------



## anthonyUK (10/6/15)

I am a fan of the experiments as if nothing else they show where corners can be cut or processes can be changed, if you want to.
As mentioned regarding no chill, when the idea was floated people would have said it won't work, the resulting beer will be hazy and won't keep and I read the same sort of arguments against BIAB.
If you are happy with these and as far as I'm aware there are no flavour downsides then where is the issue?
The point being that as long as people are made aware of these points and the reasons for doing so then they can decide whether it is an appropriate step in their process especially when 'stacking' them.


----------



## Glomp (10/6/15)

Hi all.

It is an interesting discussion but any scientist who designed the experiments the way he does would be given the boot. That being said I quite like the blogs as he is having a go.

But there is no replication, no trying to remove variables as you would expect because he hasn't got access to say hundreds of temperature controlled fermenters so that he can design experiments at an adequate level that could be peer reviewed.

I am an agricultural scientist and when looking at cropping systems small plots are used extensively. These plots can be only a 20 square metres but they are replicated and are acceptable to the industry to show the effect on larger trials and then onto broadacre crops which may be thousands of hectares. Its how science works. Lots of small doses, areas, treatments etc which are later tested in ever increasing scale.


----------



## GalBrew (10/6/15)

I also enjoy reading the blog, but yeah as someone who earns a crust as a scientist it lacks rigour and replication.


----------



## antiphile (10/6/15)

...as well as a reproducible (or even a quantifiable) means to measure the results.


----------



## drsmurto (10/6/15)

Mattwa said:


> Being on a forum for a long time does not make you the arbiter of who understands the science of brewing and who does not. Hubris is not an attractive character trait.
> 
> I'm glad you and the good Dr are here to share your experience and knowledge, but that does not give you some god given power to pass judgement on every little home brew related thing.
> 
> It's beginning to dawn on my obviously dull brain that neither of you have actually read the blog, or if you have you wilfully misunderstood it for trying to be something it isn't. Neither of you have actually commented on the content at all.


Fair criticism received, I hadn't actually read that specific blog. Given your comment that you intend to look at the peer reviewed journal I linked to it's only fair I do the same and read the blog in question.

So I've read a couple of entries, one on aeration and another on water chemistry, both topics well within my scientific expertise in addition to my brewing experience. Oxygen is an area i research in wine and only today submitted a review paper that touches on the area although the main focus is sulfur chemistry of wine.

I just wasted 20 mins of my life and I want them back. That is terrible shit, not even close to being scientific. In one of the water chemistry experiments he misses the mash in temperature by 7 degrees F and continues on as if this will have no impact. Really? Mash temperature is not important? A quick adjustment with a hand held heating wand and the experiment continues.

In the aeration experiment he uses different volumes of wort but the same volumes of yeast starter? What the? The FG was 4 points higher than expected which he blames on mash temperature but could just as easily be a yeast health issues. He also uses 7 tasters to come up with the conclusion that there is no difference and questions the advice given by yeast manufacturers to pitch in to well aerated wort?

Blind triangle tasting sounds scientific and it is a legitmate tool used within my industry to assess differences. It is repeated and the trials randomised. This brewer does neither and then quotes P values?

This is not science nor even close to. It is the adventures of a couple of brewers. That's it. The member 'Contrarian' recently used the phrase 'the plural of anecdote isn't data'. Love it. This blog is badly formed anecdotes.

If you insist on reading brewing 'blogs' rather than brewing science textbooks or the online journal i linked to, at least use Braukaiser.


----------



## anthonyUK (10/6/15)

DrSmurto said:


> This is not science nor even close to. It is the adventures of a couple of brewers.


That is the way I assumed it was understood. Does anyone view these exbeeriments as scientifically accurate?


----------



## Rocker1986 (11/6/15)

anthonyUK said:


> That is the way I assumed it was understood. Does anyone view these exbeeriments as scientifically accurate?


I don't, because it's one data point and a handful of people. It is unlikely that it represents the majority. If they got 1000 homebrewers all in the same controlled environment brewing batches to test these things and had a shitload of people tasting and reporting on it, then maybe it would hold more weight.

I still enjoy reading the blog though. I've made two process changes as a result: the fast lager method, and harvesting yeast from starters instead of the trub after fermenting a batch. If I wasn't happy with these, then I would have ditched them. Other than that, it's unlikely I'll change anything else about my process, unless some convincing scientific data comes along about it.

I think the whole point of it isn't to shit on proven science, but just to challenge accepted views/practices in homebrewing. There must be some reason why transferring to secondaries is losing popularity, maybe because it has no perceivable benefits to the finished beer. Other homebrewers can have a go at these 'alternate' methods or not, it's completely up to them. I don't think the blog is trying to pass itself off as a science journal, it is simply documenting a few home brewing experiments and the results within a small group of people. I always thought the best thing about home brewing was indeed, experimentation.

Am I going to start doing 30 minute mashes? Highly unlikely. Same goes for 30 minute boils. If I did for some reason, and wasn't happy with the results, I wouldn't do it again, but I'd still have at least experimented with it and found that out for myself.


----------



## TSMill (11/6/15)

Seems like home brewers do exBEERiments, and research chemists just wine......


----------



## sp0rk (11/6/15)

I can almost hear the butthurt of the fanbois...


----------



## SnakeDoctor (11/6/15)

Criticising brulosophy for not being scientific is like criticising the journals that DrSmurto linked to for not being funny.

The author himself has pointed out that the goal isn't scientific process, it's fun and experimentation.

This world breaking SHOCKING news just in: *different things are different.*

MHB/DrSmurto: I love your work in general, but I honestly don't see why you both strawmanned the website/author to argue about something that's not being disputed.


----------



## drsmurto (11/6/15)

My point, and it seems almost everyone missed it, is that the blog is not even remotely useful to any brewer unless you have a '**** it, it's just beer attitude'. It's sloppy. It has almost no relevance to improving brewing as it is not done with any real care or understanding of how to conduct something that is reproducible. You would have to repeat everything yourself just to have an idea whether it actually works.

If you don't want brewing science in the droll format that a scientist writes it then I have pointed out Braukaiser as a good compromise between peer reviewed science and brewing forums.

Strawman? Seriously? **** it, I'm trying to help people out by pointing out the blog in question is not actually helpful. There is more useful information on this forum if anyone bothered to search for themselves.

This is one of the main reasons I went on hiatus from this place. Not sure why I bothered returning. NickJD may be gone but he left 1000 of his drones behind.


----------



## SnakeDoctor (11/6/15)

Apologies mate, as above, love your work and I genuinely read every post you write, i'm not trying to offend or annoy anyone here.

I don't think i've missed your point, it's just that no one is claiming it is what you are saying it isn't. (I.e a strawman).

I am in no way disputing your brewing knowledge, background or profession, I'm putting it to you that you have misinterpreted the aim of the website/author.

It's not helpful in the way you want it to be or think it should be, it's helpful in the way that it entertains on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

People don't read it because they want brewing science or to brew repeatable beer, they read it to be entertained and have fun.

Homebrew equivalent of Mythbusters.


----------



## drsmurto (11/6/15)

The author of the blog may have intended it to be nothing more than a lazy Sunday afternoon blog but that is not the discussion that has occurred on this thread. The original post is all about the validity of the experiments. Hence no strawman. I think you've perhaps skipped the original post and only read the back and forth arguments that occurred later?


----------



## MHB (11/6/15)

The problem is that without understanding what is going on in a process and several links have been posted to quality information; it is difficult to evaluate what the effect of a change in process will do.
Take the 30 minute boil idea, there are desirable changes in the wort that take time at a good boil to achieve; read this View attachment 02 - The function of wort boiling11.pdf
; it's far from being a hard to follow technical tome, but it gives anyone a good basic understanding of why we boil a wort and what happens in the process. From there its easier to decide if you want to shorten your boil and what will happen if you do.

That's all I wanted to get across, unfortunately a lot of people read that you can do a short boil and still make acceptable beer and accept that without question.

There are commercially made beers that boil the wort for as little as 15 minutes (Kindl Weiss) and another whole style where unboiled wort is fermented (Shati). I an not saying that a short boil is bad just that there are consequences if you choose to do one and before you decide that its a good idea understand the price.

Same applies to every other part of brewing, every choice affects the beer, this is something that I believe is not taken on board by some who read information like Brulosophy.
Mark


----------



## technobabble66 (11/6/15)

I'm glad SD just posted that last clarifying reply above.
All that seems to have happened is a few crossed wires, and maybe some unfortunate emotive language to express one's opinion and then some defensive action:

OP posted "what's everyone think of this blog with some home HB trials?". 
For better or worse, the trials are presented in a quasi-scientific manner and in spite of prominent disclaimers, are kinda discussed as semi-scientific results. Furthermore, the OP seems to be interpreting the blog as a set of scientific results, though done on a less-than-perfect home setting.

Basically it makes for some interesting reading and maybe even a few tips/"improvements" but most people, especially the experienced brewers, can also point to significant flaws in the methodology and the error of reading too much into the results. The brewers on here with an actual science/research background have taken the time to clarify that the blog is definitely in no way proper science ("proper" referring to reproducible, rigorous methodology, not an authoritarian conspiracy), and should not be mistaken for what is actual science & scientific results as per published in peer-review journals. Most people on here seem to have already understood that (and had mentioned it in their posts), but i think it's valuable to have that clarification in black and white - people of a non-research background sometimes see little difference between well written blogs and a peer-review research journal. 
The input of everyone in these discussions is valuable, but especially so the detailed responses/explanations from the more highly experienced brewers and those with a deeper science understanding of (home) brewing. It helps make AHB a foundation of knowledge, rather than just internet opinion.

FWIW, as someone with a science background, i can appreciate that people who are in the science industry, namely the researchers, get a little exasperated with most other people apparently blurring between rigorous reproducible peer-reviewed scientific research & experimentation, and everything else which can sometimes be little more than anecdotal opinion. That's not to say any basic opinion must therefore be wrong, it's just that it's only an opinion until more rigorously demonstrated. Or just an interesting result in an home brewery, etc. Sometimes important knowledge/science can start off in such a setting, but it's not really reliable or credible until its been shown to be reproducible in a rigorous process.

Apologies for the long post, but reading this thread was starting to feel like a train wreck in slow motion, even though i think it was a valuable discussion topic to initiate.

EDIT: i should add i really like the kind of stuff Brulosopher is doing; but yeah, i'd take it with a massive grain of salt. Some great nuggets in there and i like to see boundaries tested; but there's a few seriously loose bits of process in there and i'm a little worried that anyone who wasn't mindful enough to pick up on those might come away with a some poor ideas.


----------



## oglennyboy (11/6/15)

A good chat, plenty of thought and useful links to boot, that's why I really like this forum! 
For my contribution I'd like to add this document for reader's perusal, it was something I found when I was stuck with an urn that pooped itself and would not do more than a mild simmer of about 92-95*C. Read in conjunction with Mark's link in the post above it makes for interesting reading, and I think really highlights one of the main things I've taken away from the discussion: the variability of ONE element is generally not going to be massively important to the overall end result, as long as it's in the ballpark. So no need to freak out & dump a beer if the day doesn't quite go to plan 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1966.tb02933.x/pdf

For what it's worth, my simmered beers turned out just fine, a bit less clear, but not screamingly different.
cheers!


----------



## Newy (11/6/15)

MHB, Thanks for the link to the Boiling Wort pdf, an excellent read.


Cheers.


----------



## Forever Wort (11/6/15)

Essentially in home brewing whatever works for you, on your system, with the beer styles you brew and with your own subjective palate, is sufficient for your purposes. But it is not necessarily going to be the case for everyone else brewing different beers on different systems with different tastes. Your brewing observations cannot be conclusive contributions to an esoteric, scientific, universal "brewing truth" that does away with these variables. Our opinions as brewers are still important - they're just not pure science. And I for one am thankful for that.

In my view the Brulosopher is sharing anecdotes and not pretending to be a scientist. Many of his conclusions are sound _for his (and many of our) purposes_ - it's on the occasion when he is tempted to extrapolate that things get messy. 
But in general I think he maintains a casual tone that belies the occasional digression and he poses more questions than he tries to answer.

And as per my original post in this thread: none of his exBEERiments have been groundbreaking. None of his claims are extravagant. Thus he will probably continue to coast on through and profit from his blog.


----------



## SnakeDoctor (11/6/15)

DrSmurto said:


> The author of the blog may have intended it to be nothing more than a lazy Sunday afternoon blog but that is not the discussion that has occurred on this thread. The original post is all about the validity of the experiments. Hence no strawman. I think you've perhaps skipped the original post and only read the back and forth arguments that occurred later?



I interpret the OP as asking questions and opening the discussions, asking for opinions and finding the ideas interesting rather than presenting a viewpoint, I appreciate it's a broad/large post though, can be looked at a few ways.

Thanks for the reply.


----------



## yankinoz (11/6/15)

As noted by many on this thread, the exbeeriments do not meet accepted standards for statistical significance or control, peer reviewers would at the very least call for replication, etc.; yet I'm not ready to write off brulosophy.as no better than one brewer's uncontrolled experience with a single batch. Saying an experiment is of heuristic value can be a cop out, but one or two of the exbeeriments do just that.

Anyone is free to replicate the exbeeriments, and I suspect some people will. If replicated, where would we be? I'll look at three cases.

1. We'd know a 30-minute boil does not always lead to a rush of DMS, but that is really not surprising. We've known all along that DMS production also varies with base malt and more arguably with speed of cooling (what really happens in a no-chill cube is still pretty open). We'd be on shaky ground generalizing unless and until a large number of trials had been done with various malts, worts and cooling schemes. Meanwhile, experience with successful brews will take priority.

2. We'd know one English ale yeast can produce a palatable brew at higher temperatures than what is usually recommended. But generalization is unwise, for one, because the yeast processors have run their own trials and made recommendations on that basis. And the exbeeriment tells us nothing about other strains of yeast.

3. The trub exbeeriment would be the most helpful of the lot, if only because high trub is widely believed to be deleterious. Brewers who dump trub without
whirlpooling or filtering could.take heart. I'll try it for sure. Still, before making dumping a general recommendation, we'd need to know from further trials whether the exbeeriment reduced hot break (I. for one, skim froth) and the effect of high trub on extended storage. Then there's wort gravity.

I remember one long-defunct US brewery's lab. They were set up for small 2 x 2 batch trials, that is, two identical trials with control. That wouldn't get their results published, and it wasn't comparable to the published work done by, say, the Weihenstephan Institute, but it was an improvement on what most of us home brewers do, and it helped the brewery develop a strange beer named Champale, then quite popular, particularly but not only among African-Americans.

The bruolosopher seems to be encouraging peope to try short cuts, and will probably have some success. What's wrong wirh that?

I brew, therefore I am.


----------



## Goose (13/6/15)

Yes, the idea of the original post was to generate some discussion about the validity of brulosophy experiments to our home brewing processes.

Of course, we should give far more credence to proper objective and repeatable science than to one homebrewer with specific equipment and processes, though we homebrewers often wonder why we do what we do and for how long we do it, and what might happen if we cut a corner. I particularly like the analogy brought up by MHB about how many corners do you cut a square before it looks like a circle. Very apt.

I doubt anyody is claiming that Brulosophy is rigorous science. As Dr S points out, rigorous scientific method invites challenge through repeatability in controlled experiments using standardised equipment and test methods. Brulosophy is a guy with a wooden spoon and an eski. He has a thermometer, a pH meter and a calibrated hydrometer. Poorly designed or otherwise, he is trying to satisfy his curiousity using the tools available to himself.

But I think the key point is in the judgement criteria that all of us use to assess our beers, and that is our ultimate objective: taste and to some extent aroma and mouthfeel. Science can determine the levels of some of the known compounds that can be detected in their own right, such as diacetyl and acetaldehyde etc, and also explore the variables in process that affect such levels but otherwise its impossible to quantify 'taste'. In Brulosophy it seems about being able to discern the difference in taste after beers were made using different processes supposedly by changing one variable at a time. As far as I can see, the only science used in interpreting such difference is statistics which at best yield only a probability of a variable having an effect on the overall taste.

For home brewers not seeking ISO 9002 accreditation for their processes, what works, works.


----------



## indica86 (13/6/15)

I use the Lager method from there and like it a lot.


----------



## TheWiggman (15/6/15)

Mattwa said:


> I'm glad you and the good Dr are here to share your experience and knowledge, but that does not give you some god given power to pass judgement on every little home brew related thing.


I've been biting my tongue for some time here but I think this line says more than Mattwa thinks, which is the problem with the internet in general.

It's not being MHB or DrSmurto that gives them a power to pass judgement, the problem with the internet (this forum included) is that EVERYONE is given the power to pass judgement. I've got as much authority as the next keyboard warrior to give everyone who can read good, bad, or misleading advice. I've given advice here before with good intentions and later found out I was downright wrong. However, after a few hours I can't go back and edit my post and later someone might read it and take that as good advice.
And for the record, a particular post I'm thinking of was based on bad advice I read - you guessed it - on this forum. So the blind was leading the blind.

I find the Brulosophy web site interesting. For example, I was surprised that not making a starter and direct pitching a yeast vial resulted in a beer with the same attenuation as a yeast which has been started.
...for a standard gravity beer.
Brewed at a given temp.
With a particular yeast.
With certain ingredients.
For a particular mashing regime etc etc.

And therein lies the problem. A layperson may take this as 'starter not required' or selectively think 'starter not required for 1.045 gravity beers' OR 'starter not required for ales' or lead to any conclusion they want. This can throw many brewers off-track which I believe was the whole point of the negativity towards Brulosopher.

Personally though I think that's one of the most enticing things about brewing, there are so many simple yet difficult concepts that may seem to have the smallest of impact, and at the end of the day the whole is larger than the sum of the parts.
I personally select my advice from the manufacturers, some individuals, reputable publications and the odd robust discussion. Others may choose to reference Brulosophy, but I won't without a good degree of scepticism.


----------



## anthonyUK (15/6/15)

> And therein lies the problem. A layperson may....


There. You said it.

Anyone can read something and use the information unwisely but they can also read/learn the theory and from experience.
Everyone was a beginner at some point and has to take responsibility for their mistakes if they choose not to take the time to learn the basics.
Brulosopher in this respect can hardly be singled out for providing information that could be misused.


----------



## antiphile (15/6/15)

You are absolutely correct when you say "Brulosopher in this respect can hardly be singled out for providing information that could be misused."

However, in the context of this thread (and noting the title of the thread), it seems unecessary to to be aplogetic for those comments. Like someone once said, "opinions are like assholes; everyone has got one". To which I'll also add, I don't really want to see everyone's.


----------

