I have about 5 pounds of munich and 5 pounds of kolsch I milled at LHBS about a month and a half ago and they have been sealed in a home depot bucket, check em out they smell decent and have been dry. Would you try it? I’m already brewing tomorrow and will have my things out I might as well brew Sunday as well. I hate to see grains go to waste
Briess says 2 years. My own experience is that 5 months was fine. We did this on the podcast…https://www.experimentalbrew.com/podcast/episode-22-anything-stale-wisconsin
When I first started my brewery in Huntsville, AL 10 years ago we ordered grain ground and when sealed it easily lasted 6 months through hot and humid warehouse environments.
brulosophy did an experiment on it, surprise surprise “no difference detected”. but they did test it.
ive had grains sit around for several months and made beers i thought were good. as denny says 5 months should be fine.
As the aphorism says “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.
No difference means that the experiment failed (to reject the null hypothesis).
There’re many option not mutually exclusive for the experiment failing, only one of them being that there’s no difference between milled and not milled.
Cheers!
Thanks y’all!
I’d like to see those who object to the way these guys do it, redo it correctly to get more accurate results. I’d like to see several of these corrections many disagree with to see if the results stand or are reversed.
aphorisms don’t “say”, they may “state” or “illustrate” however.
*many options, not (remainder is run-on sentence)
Cheers!
Thanks for the correction. English is my second language
The objection is to the interpretation of the conclusion.
No as scientific conclusions can be taken from a failed experiment.
It’s not useless but it’s just anecdotal evidence.
Answering scientific criticism with “if you don’t like it, then you do it” is silly.
I see myself out.
Cheers!
Uh… replicating experiments is exactly what scientists do to confirm conclusions. In fact Scientists aim for their studies to be replicable — meaning that another researcher could perform a similar investigation and obtain the same basic results. When a study cannot be replicated, it suggests that our current understanding of the study system or our methods of testing are insufficient.
I’ll report back on how the beer tastes in a few weeks, that’s the only scientific method I need. Well that and OHMs law
i think he’s not getting exactly what we mean due to language issues, assuming we reject experiments out of hand. im just not going to bother.
First and foremost, I appeciate the data and experiments provided by Brulosophy. I just think (like all scientific literature), you need to view their results through the proper lens. Data is data, but conclusions based on probabilities are not absolutes.
Their choice of a p-value of 0.05 is a blessing and a curse. Their typical xBmt is not powerful enough to resolve all but the most clear-cut differences. You can trust that a p-value set that fine will eliminate the majority of false positives, but this isn’t data from a particle collider or pharmaceutical research. And even in physics or medical journals the actual calculated p-value is always listed, and data from small experiments that trend towards a conclusion but have wider error bars are still presented as such. This allows the reader to apply the data itself, rather than just the authors’ conclusions. It would be nice to see the actual p-value for each experiment, at the very least. The experimenters tend to treat their p-value of 0.05 as all-or-nothing, but like all probabilities this is just not the case.
And it’s being dismissive or argumentative to state that that the failure to reject the null hypothesis doesn’t say much, because in these experiments that is absolutely true. Brulosophy has chosen to focus on eliminating false positives, but that necessarily comes at the expense of increasing “false negatives” (in quotes because they aren’t testing for negatives). That effect is increased significantly in small data sets. It’s not a knock on the experimenters at all, it’s simply how the math works out.