Yeast pitching.....FFS there is enough in pack

[Spiesy]

You don't need to trerat your water but you can if you want, depending on style of course

Depends on your water.

 

[Nick JD]

Just as important to pitch rates (possibly more) is dissolved oxygen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A734B5E1C3U

 

[GalBrew]

Depends on your water.

Sure does.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

I tend to thing that oxygen has a big affect on yeast performance. I always make sure my wort is pirated as much as possible when I pitch. Many a brewer has neglected this.

 

[black_labb]

I do most of my starters right in the fermenter. a litre or 2 in the bottom of the fermenter is pretty shallow so it ends up having quite a bit of surface area for oxygen to dissolve in the wort. Shake it around a few times and it's pretty well aerated. I use this wort as part of the brew (it usually comes from the bottom of the kettle and is reboiled after decanting off the trub so it is the same wort). There's no extra equipment or sanitation needed.

 

[Parks]

I tend to thing that oxygen has a big affect on yeast performance. I always make sure my wort is pirated as much as possible when I pitch. Many a brewer has neglected this.

I'm not currently sure if we speak the same language

 

[black_labb]

the same language?

We arrrrrrrr

 

[Nick JD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75gpehf_6Gk

And an experiment on pitching rates by Braukaiser. He used weight loss (of CO2) as a measure of fermentation - around 4% of the wort weight is lost to the air.

Unfortunately he doesn't go into how the resulting beers actually taste - so the info is great if you're making E85 for your pink Hyundai.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

I'm not currently sure if we speak the same language

Tucking auto correct spell feature

 

[Adr_0]

Fridge auto cucumber

 

[verysupple]

Good science does not say. Good science suggests, based on evidence.

Pseudoscince "suggests" based on evidence - eg: "Fat people exhibit higher rates of heart disease, therefore fat causes heart disease" is analogous to some of the anecdotal "evidence" put forward here. Science tests hypotheses based on theory and makes conclusions based on observations. No conclusion, no science.

 

[treefiddy]

Some scientists are lucky enough to pass through a fourth stage. This is when you realize that science is not about finding the truth at all, but about finding better ways of being wrong. The best scientific theory is not the one that reveals the truth — that is impossible. It is the one that explains what we already know about the world in the simplest way possible, and that makes useful predictions about the future. When I accepted that I would always be wrong, and that my favourite theories are inevitably destined to be replaced by other, better, theories — that is when I really knew that I wanted to be a scientist. A theory can never be perfect: the best it can be is better than the theory that went before.

An essay written by aspiring researcher, released posthumously in Nature 497, 277–278; 2013

 

[pommiebloke]

An essay written by aspiring researcher, released posthumously in Nature 497, 277–278; 2013

Linky

 

[Lecterfan]

Pseudoscince "suggests" based on evidence - eg: "Fat people exhibit higher rates of heart disease, therefore fat causes heart disease" is analogous to some of the anecdotal "evidence" put forward here. Science tests hypotheses based on theory and makes conclusions based on observations. No conclusion, no science.

Sorry, Manticle is correct. In scientific reasoning, a conclusion is based on evidence that does not disprove the hypothesis (i.e. it confirms the hypothesis but does not 'prove' it as an irrefutable truth - thus hypothesis testing either 'rejects' or 'fails to reject' a null hypothesis rather than 'accepting' it). Claiming 'proof' within the scientific method is committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent: If P, Q + Q = (therefore) P. Proof can happen within certain regimes of representation but not within (good) science.

Science relies on falsifiability (the ability to be disproven) and each 'truth' is merely pragmatically maintained in the form of a given hypothesis that has not yet been disproven.

The grand concept of capital-T Truth a la 'proof' is the realm of unfalsifiability (i.e. God's will, Freudian theory of infant sexuality, pure logic, mathematics) thus not scientific. Karl Popper 101.

And yes, it is largely a matter of semantics around the word 'proof', and the more scientists (and people purporting to use the scientific method) who know that, the better. Science is based on a number of Humean and Cartesian presuppositions and is the most effective, pragmatic approach to issues such as brewing and most everything else pertaining to materialist issues around the useful but unproven link of cause-and-effect.

Anyway. Yeast.

Edit - shouldn't have bothered posting and just 'liked' the above two posts (now that I read the link in full). Anyway.

Edit again - if it sounds prepared that's because I just gave a lecture on fallacies in scientific reasoning to a group of psych students hahaha.

 

[verysupple]

I never said anything about proof or the truth. My point was that when "science" suggests something it's only because the evidence was not strong enough to conclude anything. In the scientific world, many bodies of work all suggesting something can add together to yeild conclusive evidence. This conclusion may later be supported by further evidence, shown to be incorrect or merely less accurate, but until then...

 

[GalBrew]

Since when did psych students have anything to do with science??

 

[Lecterfan]

A conclusion is only a temporary inference drawn from evidence. Evidence 'suggests' (confirms the pragmatic utility of a theory). And as you say in your final sentence the conclusion is not actually 'conclusive' in the common day use of the word. Anyway, yes I think we are largely on the same page and using some of the terms in slightly different ways.

Galbrew - exactly!

 

[GalBrew]

A conclusion is only a temporary inference drawn from evidence. Evidence 'suggests' (confirms the pragmatic utility of a theory). And as you say in your final sentence the conclusion is not actually 'conclusive' in the common day use of the word. Anyway, yes I think we are largely on the same page and using some of the terms in slightly different ways.
Galbrew - exactly!

I think if want to get this discussion going really freaky, it is time to discuss the art/science of INFERENCE with which we base all of these 'conclusions' us scientists come up with and the abuse that it undergoes on a daily basis :icon_vomit:

 

[verysupple]

And as you say in your final sentence the conclusion is not actually 'conclusive' in the common day use of the word.

Kind of like the conclusion to a film to which they then make a sequel

 

[jc64]

And someone had temerity to suggest this thread was not worthwhile!