Brulosophy

[Mattwa]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Mattwa]

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

 

[MHB]

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]

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]

CBA

 

[Newy]

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!