Brulosophy

[Goose]

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]

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

 

[plateofboxes]

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]

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]

I regularly do 30 minute boils, works very well.

 

[Rocker1986]

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]

I regularly do 30 minute boils, works very well.

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

 

[manticle]

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]

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]

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

 

[boybrewer]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]