Brulosophy

[yankinoz]

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]

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]

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

 

[TheWiggman]

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]

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]

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.