No Chill / Partial Chill / Full Chill Experiment

Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum

Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
its milk that is pasteurised at those temps

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=...VP-IQ4NbofE3KTg

so someone packing their cube at 80 is probably erring on the safe side to allow for heat loss down the siphon hose and heat the cube will absorb, which is probably realistic

i think i'll do the partial chill to 80deg not 70deg

also, with the earlier references, it looks like isomerisation is considerably slower at 90 deg vs 100 deg, and again even slower at 80 deg, so 80 deg should achieve what its intended to do and also be safe


Pasturisation is the killing of bacteria in a liquid from high temps. wether it is milk or beer is pretty much irrelevant as it's the bacteria we are dealing with. It was also mentioned that using cubes we should err on the side of safety as there could be bacteria hiding in cracks, tapholes ect and a bit more temperature will likely heat into the cracks killing the bacteria where lower temps could possibly not kill all the bacteria in a crack/thread.


And here is another situation where I am being anal about specifics that don't really matter, but I can't help myself :eek:
 
The only thing that I can think of that will improve the test is changing the yeast proposed. US05 is a bit of a hop killer, maybe look at a yeast strain that is more hop friendly?

It's been interesting to read through all of the no chill threads in the last 3 months or so and I tip my hat at you for doing this test, great idea.
 
Hahaha. Might have to let the hundreds of excellent american breweries using this yeast know....
 
I thought US05 was well known for its hop showcasing qualities? It was this that lead me to using it for my LCPA.

It's good to see somewhat of an open forum/debate occuring to assist with the evolution of the experiment conditions.
 
As long as you are consistent with everything except the parameter you are measuring the difference for, it is a sound experiment.
Regarding blind tasting, the more people you get to taste, the more precise your data will be.

I believe a blind tasting on the wort pre-ferment would also be a worthy experiment. You could compare difference without the added variable of yeast,time and temp. Given that differences in yeast time and temp will have a significant impact on finished flavour.

And i must beg to differ with a few on the 'dont worry about lab analysis' bit.
IMHO, the lab analysis would also take out the subjective variable of differing palates and give some 'real' data that could be used as a guide to improve everyones understandings of chill vs no-chill.
Hat off to you for tackling the experiment...wish i was closer to help out.
 
As long as you are consistent with everything except the parameter you are measuring the difference for, it is a sound experiment.
Regarding blind tasting, the more people you get to taste, the more precise your data will be.

I believe a blind tasting on the wort pre-ferment would also be a worthy experiment. You could compare difference without the added variable of yeast,time and temp. Given that differences in yeast time and temp will have a significant impact on finished flavour.

And i must beg to differ with a few on the 'dont worry about lab analysis' bit.
IMHO, the lab analysis would also take out the subjective variable of differing palates and give some 'real' data that could be used as a guide to improve everyones understandings of chill vs no-chill.
Hat off to you for tackling the experiment...wish i was closer to help out.


Do you drink beer for the numbers? I drink it for the taste! Hence stuff the scientific numbers, they are just a wank factor. Why do all the big breweries still hire people to do the final tasting? We need all the tasters we can get, so we can result on the input from many different people. People drink beer, not scientific equipment. If donburke is happy to bottle up one of each, I am more than happy to pay to get them up here and get together locals for a tasting, and submit our notes. Hopefully I can get AndrewQld in on this as he has the best ability to pick up the exact characteristics of beer of anyone I have ever met.

Same as drinking pre-fermented wort? I don't normally do that, do you? The finished product is what matters.

Keep it simple, blind tasting so yo don't build a pre determined outcome, and keep real people who are tasting it!

Don't forget this is a hobby and should be fun.


QldKev :icon_cheers:
 
Not sure how manticle did the experiment but i was under the impression he doesnt make time changes for no chill ?

No I don't. That's a separate experiment to see if you can compensate with NC to get same/simialr to chilled.

Mine was simply to compare the difference, as a no chiller, of a known beer and known recipe when chilled.

I don't make adjustments because I design all my own recipes and I no chill - therefore I design my recipes based around that method. No need to adjust anything - just to get a taste for what works to my palate.

My experiment took a beer that I make regularly that involves a lot of late hopping. I brewed a double batch on a friend's system, ran one lot off to no chill and one through a plate chiller. I can't remember now which one was run off first - the NC one to make sure it was still hot enough or the chilled one to make sure it got all the advantages of chilling.

Anyway both were fermented with same date packets of neutral yeast (05) - the chilled one same day (obviously) and the NC one next day. Same ferment conditions, both cold conditioned, both dry hopped at 1g/L with the same hops that appeared in the brewing, equal amounts of all hops. Neither yeasts were rehydrated, bot brews were fermented with cold break (NC one in the cube, no transfer, chilled got CB becuase it was a plate chiller).

While I did it mainly for myself to see what I thought, I got 3 other brewers to taste it, then took it to my brew club where a few others tasted it.

I think MXD was actually one of the few to pick the NC one straight up. Strangely enough, the first three brewers mentioned and at least one or two from the brew club, picked the NC as being more aromatic.

The chilled had a more distinct flavour hop profile (and actually showed some elements of one hop I didn't like which weren't in the NC version) and was definitely less bitter. I actually found it too sweet and out of balance and if chilling would change the recipe (probably by dropping the crystal and munich amounts, rather than by changing the hops). I know at least one other I gave two bottles to preferred the chilled and found the NC a tad too bitter.

Anyway mine was interesting but far from conclusive, except to say that yes there is a difference and yes NC will definitely give more bitterness in beers with late additions. Preference can still fall on either side and there would no doubt have been variables in my trial that I didn't control.

I have become interested in purchasing a plate chiller for use with some beers, when I feel like it but I'm not likely to give up NC completely and I'm not likely to start trying to compensate my NC beers by screwing with the addition times unless for the purpose trying an experiement precisely to determine that difference.

I think good on Don for having a crack - these experiments are a great way to learn about beer and different methods.
 
Here's how to do it.

Get ten people. Fill up 30, 50ml glasses with brew A, brew B and brew C - ten of each. Give them a multi-choice form so they can tick which they think it is.

Then fill up ten glasses of X (which is B - but they (and you) don't know that).

They sip X and then sip A, B and C ... their goal is to identify whether A, B or C is X.

Fill up another 30 glasses of A, B and C.

Fill up ten glasses of Y (which is C - but they (and you) don't know that).

They sip Y and then sip A, B and C ... their goal is to identify whether A, B or C is Y. On their multi-choice form they can tick which they think it is.

Repeat for Z.

At the end you will have a true representation of whether there is a discernable difference between the three beers. Everything else is just a bunch of pissheads talking shit.

I can get all statistics on yo asses if you'd like; beer appreciation is one thing - actually eliminating wank from taste testing is a whole nother.
 
Here's how to do it.

Get ten people. Fill up 30, 50ml glasses with brew A, brew B and brew C - ten of each. Give them a multi-choice form so they can tick which they think it is.

Then fill up ten glasses of X (which is B - but they (and you) don't know that).

They sip X and then sip A, B and C ... their goal is to identify whether A, B or C is X.

Fill up another 30 glasses of A, B and C.

Fill up ten glasses of Y (which is C - but they (and you) don't know that).

They sip Y and then sip A, B and C ... their goal is to identify whether A, B or C is Y. On their multi-choice form they can tick which they think it is.

Repeat for Z.

At the end you will have a true representation of whether there is a discernable difference between the three beers. Everything else is just a bunch of pissheads talking shit.

I can get all statistics on yo asses if you'd like; beer appreciation is one thing - actually eliminating wank from taste testing is a whole nother.


Nicks suggestion is actually a good idea. Triangle testing WITHOUT the brewer knowing which beer is which beer is essential.

tnd
 
I thought it was obvious that brewers wouldn't know which beer is which beer until after they have tasted (and given feedback or opinion)?

Nick's method is the most thorough statistically but I thought blind tasting was self evident?

Of course just tasting beer and giving feedback based on tasting, not expectation (so not knowing what any of them are or the purpose of the experiment) is the proper way to do it. Is that what you were suggesting?
 
Nicks suggestion is actually a good idea. Triangle testing WITHOUT the brewer knowing which beer is which beer is essential.

tnd


someones gotta know which is which because if the differences are noticeable then you'd want to know which is the 'preferred' one
 
These things can easily be "rigged" by an "influential person" at the tastings who knows which beer is which.

Also, several individuals can confer together through conversation about a particular aspect of a beer (right or wrong) but by chance alone (1/3) a "trend" will be assumed.

By asking the tasters to reassess the flavour will result in a more accurate assessment (ie they were all wrong or correct).

Also, if there are distinct differences in the beer, it will help the tasters to "taste" higher IBU against lower IBU (ie they ge to taste more than once and re-compare.

cheers

tnd
 
someones gotta know which is which because if the differences are noticeable then you'd want to know which is the 'preferred' one

That's the "double" blind ... the guy pouring the beers isn't aware which is which (someone who doesn't watch the test labels the bottles and leaves, knowing which is which).

This way you don't get someone who everyone looks to when they think they have it to see his reaction. Or worse, someone who makes comments about others preferences.
 
The person suppling the beer labels them 1-4. Gives bottles to someone ( doesnt tell him what they are). That person randomly relabels them A-D, taking note of course of changes eg #1 is C.
Gives bottles to pourer.
Ideally tasters should be seperated ( screen etc) to prevent collusion.
Tasters given standard multi choice questions to make stat compilation easier.
 
Do you drink beer for the numbers? I drink it for the taste! Hence stuff the scientific numbers, they are just a wank factor. Why do all the big breweries still hire people to do the final tasting? We need all the tasters we can get, so we can result on the input from many different people. People drink beer, not scientific equipment. If donburke is happy to bottle up one of each, I am more than happy to pay to get them up here and get together locals for a tasting, and submit our notes. Hopefully I can get AndrewQld in on this as he has the best ability to pick up the exact characteristics of beer of anyone I have ever met.

Same as drinking pre-fermented wort? I don't normally do that, do you? The finished product is what matters.

Keep it simple, blind tasting so yo don't build a pre determined outcome, and keep real people who are tasting it!

Don't forget this is a hobby and should be fun.


QldKev :icon_cheers:


Ouch...back in my box i go!
My humble opinion of course; but I taste my beer at every stage of the process because i can, and it helps ME understand what is happening where in my process.

I also categorically agree that tasting a finished beer is very important for this experiment. I have no doubt that some people will find differences when tasting and others wont. I was employed to do it with food for 15 years.

I use my taste buds, but also rely on numbers to help me improve my craft, otherwise it may be a lot of heresay.

I digress...
 
That small and intimate moment where empiricism meets idealism and realises that it has to account for subjectivity somehow and then stuffs it under a number of different models to make it work. Completely valid (in many contexts), I'm not knocking it, but from a psychological perspective it MUST be double blind as when working with humans (rather than rats or other measurable dependant variables related to human behaviour - including perception - and even most of that is open to debate) the experimenters give the game away in their very way-of-being amongst the subjects (it may be unconscious, imperceptible, but it is there).

This goes back to when someone wanted "science" to explain the shape of the glass debate from the BWS thing...for many people the shape of the glass has already cognitively determined what characteristics they will get from the beer (due to their subjective historicity as a being in the world) before their olfactory systems fire any synapses at all. Science? Dunno...but something that happens and can be demonstrated with decent repeatability using the scientific method.

Anyway... this sounds great!
 
US05 isn't a hop killer.

yeah, I think Ice T sang a song about it in 1992"


Hop killer, better you than me.
Hop killer, f**k police brutality!
Hop killer, I know your mama's grievin'
(f**k her)

Hop killer, but tonight we get even!
:beerbang:
 
"Like" :icon_cheers:


- still got the original cd. Hardly a claim to fame, but it only lasted on Oz shelves for about 6 months before being withdrawn and replaced with the sanitised version.

THERE GOES THE NEIGHBOURHOOD! (big song for the pimply teenage Sabbath fans haha)
 

Latest posts

Back
Top