The scientific method

[Yob]

Thanks, all! Pro_drunk, good question; we could simply outline the results here as a thread (using HTML tables for data and jpegs for figures). If we do a good enough job, we could shoot for an academic journal (the Journal of the Institute of Brewing or the Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists).


Ideas mentioned above, so far, that sound feasible and potentially interesting for a small army of homebrewers:

1. compare wort aeration rate (none, medium, high - Olive Oil) -- measure lag time, total attenuation, and qualitative factors
2. trub or no trub -- less to measure quantitatively on this one, but with enough samples, we could get a good handle on the qualitative effects
3. steady vs varying temperature -- same measurements as in (1); could be hard to control the varying temperature regime, but worth a try
4. compare different wheat strains -- I like this because I work on a wheat research station. Question is, what would we measure?

others alluded to:

5. boil time -- effect on DMS? We'd control for hop utilisation (i.e., do the same hop schedule relative to the end of the boil). Might be difficult to measure DMS, but I have colleagues who have the necessary equipment and might be keen to contribute.
6. temperature of single-infusion mash -- measure OG, FG, and measure body, etc., qualitatively. This one is cool because we could directly test all the hooyah about alpha vs beta amylase temperature optima


Adr_0: your pH idea is perfect, but almost too easy because you'd get the result on the spot. On the other hand, maybe that's a strength, and a good place to start.


**One important point: we don't have to have replication within each brewer's setup. We can replicate across brewers. e.g., have 10 guys brew at condition A, another 10 at condition B. So there's room for just about everybody to participate. "Strength in numbers" is a very real thing in science. The larger the sample size, the more uncontrolled variation we can tolerate.


Any other thoughts/ideas?

Suggestion in Red

 

[DJ_L3ThAL]

Strength in numbers!!! Strength in beer!!! (Can someone translate that into Latin?)

Fortis in numeris, in fortitudine dolor.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

So, will this constitute participating members posting you stubbies labeled 'sample A' and 'sample B'?

You clever *******.

Thats why I love science.

A Proper test would require independant analysis. I am prepared to help out with this.

 

[Greg.L]

The most important part of the scientific method is being up-to-date with the current state of scientific knowledge in the field you are going to investigate. You have to thoroughly search all the journals and publications for all the research that has been published, and make yourself an expert in the area you wish to investigate. There is no point in doing experiments without this sort of knowledge because you need to understand all the variables. Just launching into an experiment from a position of relative ignorance won't progress knowledge in that field very much. It is common on homebrew forums to see people designing experiments and reporting conclusions when they don't understand the basic science behind brewing, they end up just giving incorrect advice and confusing everyone. Better to leave that sort of thing to the real experts. On the other hand if you just want to be entertaining and provoke discussion, go ahead.

 

[big78sam]

Fortis in numeris, in fortitudine dolor.

Doesn't dolor mean "pain"? Not a latin expert here just going back to my Spanish and a quick google...

 

[DJ_L3ThAL]

Doesn't dolor mean "pain"? Not a latin expert here just going back to my Spanish and a quick google...

Don't ask me, I don't work here.

http://translate.google.com/#en/la/Strength%20in%20numbers%2C%20strength%20in%20beer

 

[GalBrew]

The most important part of the scientific method is being up-to-date with the current state of scientific knowledge in the field you are going to investigate. You have to thoroughly search all the journals and publications for all the research that has been published, and make yourself an expert in the area you wish to investigate. There is no point in doing experiments without this sort of knowledge because you need to understand all the variables. Just launching into an experiment from a position of relative ignorance won't progress knowledge in that field very much. It is common on homebrew forums to see people designing experiments and reporting conclusions when they don't understand the basic science behind brewing, they end up just giving incorrect advice and confusing everyone. Better to leave that sort of thing to the real experts. On the other hand if you just want to be entertaining and provoke discussion, go ahead.

I fully agree with this point. A lot of ideas pitched in this thread have been researched by brewing scientists already. Not to say that you shouldn't experiment but without a solid knowledge of the field you wish to research you can't possibly be able to design a proper experiment or interpret results properly. From a scientist.

 

[verysupple]

I fully agree with this point. A lot of ideas pitched in this thread have been researched by brewing scientists already. Not to say that you shouldn't experiment but without a solid knowledge of the field you wish to research you can't possibly be able to design a proper experiment or interpret results properly. From a scientist.

Yup, you're probably right. Luckily, I'm a scientist too and my uni has subscriptions to pretty much all the relevant journals so I have actually read the literature on the areas I want to conduct experiments in (I mean, who wants to reinvent the wheel?). Unfortunately not all my questions have been answered.

If we do it right and write it up properly we might even be able to get something published. Now, this might seem a bit ambitious, but at the risk of sounding like a physics snob, it doesn't actually seem to be that hard to get something published in a food science journal (I'm not going for a high impact factor here because every publication on your CV counts, right?).

 

[GalBrew]

Yup, you're probably right. Luckily, I'm a scientist too and my uni has subscriptions to pretty much all the relevant journals so I have actually read the literature on the areas I want to conduct experiments in (I mean, who wants to reinvent the wheel?). Unfortunately not all my questions have been answered.

If we do it right and write it up properly we might even be able to get something published. Now, this might seem a bit ambitious, but at the risk of sounding like a physics snob, it doesn't actually seem to be that hard to get something published in a food science journal (I'm not going for a high impact factor here because every publication on your CV counts, right?).

Coming from a medical research background I would be curious to see what it takes to get published in a food science journal. I am on board with your not wanting to reinvent the wheel too. There is a bit of that going around and i just don't see the point. I myself should read some of the beer related journal papers I have downloaded and see what sort of rigour they apply.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

I think the use of FWK would be a good idea as a base for doing experiments that involve methods post mashing etc. Just one way of removing variable in wort as all the kits would come from a control batch.

 

[verysupple]

Coming from a medical research background I would be curious to see what it takes to get published in a food science journal. I am on board with your not wanting to reinvent the wheel too. There is a bit of that going around and i just don't see the point. I myself should read some of the beer related journal papers I have downloaded and see what sort of rigour they apply.

Hmmm, it's not that they're not rigorous, it's just that it seems a bit like a quote my boss uses a lot regarding other fields (we're just jealous it's so hard to publish in physics), "Manipulate a variable and turn the crank. You get five papers for the price of one."). I reckon if we don't do it right it won't get passed the associate editor. But at the same time, if it isn't exactly replicating another study and we can demonstrate an appropriate scientific method and analysis, then we should be home and hosed.

 

[verysupple]

I think the use of FWK would be a good idea as a base for doing experiments that involve methods post mashing etc. Just one way of removing variable in wort as all the kits would come from a control batch.

Yeah, I like that idea. Not only is it good from a reproducibility point of view, it reduces brewer work load which could potentially increase the number of participants and statistical power.

 

[schrodinger]

I totally agree with the comments about not reinventing the wheel. By all means we need to survey the literature and make sure we're asking a question that remains open.

It's interesting to see the old rivalries and prejudices among different fields of science emerge in such a far flung forum. You have to keep in mind the kind of resources available to scientists doing public research in lower profile fields, including food science. I think the rigour is high, though to a physicist it might seem extremely empirical, or to a medical researcher, irrelevant. What matters is the integrity of the process.

In my own field, you can definitely get published by just manipulating a variable and turning the crank, but you'll still be seen as an irrelevant failure, because nobody will read your papers. I'd imagine the same drive for relevance and novelty exists in every area of science.

 

[of mice and gods]

Wouldn't the post-boil experiments be relatively simple for people who double batch?

Particularly for fairly simple "experiments", for instance I'm currently fermenting two identical cubes of IPA, one with US05 one with the mangrove jacks m44. I have two cubes of identical apa sitting there that I'm going to dry hop with different hops. If you did a highly concentrated maxi-biab you could top them up with different water?

my 2 cents

 

[schrodinger]

very supple and Ducatiboy, could you explain what you mean by FWK?

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Fresh Wort Kit.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

one with US05 one with the mangrove jacks m44.
my 2 cents

Jeez you'd be pissed if they turned out to be the same yeast.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Wouldn't the post-boil experiments be relatively simple for people who double batch?

It would. And you raise a good point. But if you were to expand the experiment over,say 5 brewers then you would need a control wort.

 

[of mice and gods]

Ducati boy, actually I would be pissed after finding out.. isn't that half the fun of drinking beer?

Even if they were the same, they are noticeably different colours (the dried yeast).. whether or not this has something to do with different labs or drying processes or what lunar phase it was on packing day.. hell, maybe I wont even be able to tell the difference even if they are two different yeasts.. but **** it, why not?

I suggest smaller scale experiments for double batchers as I don't think there will any way to control the variables in such a way as to introduce a reliable control over many brewers. Even with the fresh wort kits, people have different fridges, temp controllers, size/shape/material fermenters, airlocks/glad wrap, differing rinse and no rinse sanitisers.. etc etc. Are you picking up what I'm putting down?

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

I am picking up what you are saying, and I agree. But, using a control wort is a good way to measure the differences between different brewers. As long as their measurements are acurate.