THANK YOU!
Thanks for the additional input guys.
@skyler - I definitely see where you’re coming from based on the experiences you’ve had. For me the exBEERiments have always been entertaining reads with details of something I might experience if following their procedures. But I agree they should not be viewed as the final word on how something should be done.
And thanks to BrewnWKopperKat for that link. Very cool!
Cheers guys!
I don’t read the articles but I do listen to the Brulosophy podcast 5 days a week while at the gym. In no way do they ever suggest that what they do is even close to the final way on how something should be done. They say it so often it amazes me how often this sentiment pops up. My theory is that when someone has been using a particular brewing technique for so long… invested so much time, effort and perhaps money into it… that when they hear someone suggest their technique may not be as important as thought - they react to protect or defend their choices.
I don’t listen to their podcast, but the end of every xbmt is a scientific taste test followed by final thoughts. I actually like the articles by themselves, but that supposedly scientific taste test is 100% expressly presented as legitimate scientific evidence and not, “this is what 15 drunk guys thought in the middle of a ub meeting.” That it doesn’t trick experienced brewers doesn’t matter because it does trick newbies, who drop out of the hobby after dumping $100 into a double IPL that tasted like rotten watermelon. Fake science is the problem here because it’s fake. If they want to get people to stop saying that they act like they’re the final word, they need to change the way they present their taste test results.
I again ask
From my professional experience, you can get different answers using different juries to evaluate your test item. For what I worked on, automotive N&V, you need someone with good hearing, or sensitive to vibrations. Tasting panels at larger breweries have tested the panel members for their taste sensitivities, and have a panel that covers the flavors that they are evaluating. I would like to see a comparison of their usual text method to having the beers evaluated by a trained tasting panel.
I assume you were referring to the Fermentis study. I saw the presentation at Providence. There were multiple trials, analytical data for the different fermentations. The analytic data did show esters increasing up to threshold levels with temperature, but at worst case just reaching threshold. I came away thinking this would work, but I still Ferment at 50F with 34/70.
Evidence is rampant IMO. Well the fooling part. Not sure about the dropout part.
but that supposedly scientific taste test is 100% expressly presented as legitimate scientific evidence
Where in the hell have you ever read or heard them say their results are “100% expressly presented as legitimate scientific evidence”? What a crock. They present the results of one single triangle test. Nothing more and nothing less. If you are reading more into that then you have some serious bias you aren’t sharing.
skyler’s main point is what i am saying. to restate, i think their methodology is great, and nothing my bottom-line focused homebrewing could come close to, but i think their tasting impartiality is blinded by this little “tasting triangle” thing they have going on.
i was a beer con-noy-ser before i started brewing, and before it was easy to get microbrews, and at the time when if you asked if a bar had anything belgian you would get a funny look. ontario where i am located is far, very far, very very far away from the quality of the more famous US states for brewing, but the stuff that is allowed to be released here is straight up shockingly bad and yet it is devoured by this new demographic of homebrewers and modern beer connoisseurs. so frankly i dont trust their taste buds because, re: the example someone is mentioning of W34/70 fermented at 60F, i keep tasting “lagers” released by nanobreweries and i honestly dont believe or at least cant tell if they are actually lager yeast fermented, and certainly not properly lagered at cold temps.
i have a discerning palate. sorry!
i still read their exbeeriments occasionally though…
i saw that they said the hop aroma and taste were notably superior in wholehops vs pellets. so i do want to try that.
This sounds like a well done study. I think Brulosophy has two potential problems. One, everyone has mentioned, you don’t know the qualifications of the taste panel. Two, how was the beer treated after fermentation? That is usually glanced over in the description. Is it quick carbed and served three days after the krausen dropped or was it properly conditioned? Sometimes they mention gelatin. Sometimes they don’t. I generally feel that part of the process is under described and I think it can have a big effect on taste. Yeast and other stuff that may drop out of the beer during conditioning can mask a lot of flavors.
Anecdotally, I have friends and colleagues who tried homebrewing and quit because they weren’t happy with the beer quality “of homebrew,” in some cases, the people were shocked by the quality of homebrew I was serving them when they brought it up because it “doesn’t taste like homebrew.” I think that’s pretty common – dropping the hobby before getting around to managing fermentation temperature. I have also talked to people who are dead-set on believing that fermentation temperature doesn’t matter because of the scientific tests that prove it online. I have not met a person who told me they know fermentation temperature doesn’t matter because of brulosophy, but that they stopped homebrewing because their beer “tasted like homebrew,” but it seems like a relatively small leap to get there.
They don’t have to say it to do it. The explanation of the blind taste test they give, followed by the explanation of statistical significance, then the analysis of the data all expressly present the “dudes in a bar taste test” as legitimate scientific evidence. If they said, “we gave a blind taste test to some people in a bar, poured from our growlers at a club meeting,” it wouldn’t have the same effect on readers.
You need to keep in mind that many others do, also.
1 Like
A single trial with a limited range of products. Go conclusion can be reached.
1 Like
I think Dave Taylor also mentioned that setting the bar so high for the p-value (IIRC) causes the exbeeriments to rarely reach statistical significance. So even with highly discerning and trained tasters, the statistical significance may not be reached if it is set at a high bar. As others have said, they aren’t proving or disproving anything, but giving one data point for further comparison purposes.
I don’t ferment lagers warm, because I have the means to ferment cooler. I have come around to higher yeast pitch rates as the means to get to finished lagers in a shorter time frame. I like my results and they are confirmed to me by some highly regarded brewers (pro and home), so I am not changing a lot in my approach based on the Brulosophy exbeeriments. I am always open to hearing others’ points of view and results, though, so I will listen and read and remain willing to be proven wrong on any topic related to this hobby.
Just my 2 cents…
I don’t think the issue of consuming on-line information like Brulosophy’s is in anyway limited to homebrewing, science, or anything else. We all have to constantly assess whether information is useful or not and what the biases and limitations are. At some level, we have to trust our own abilities (and those of others) to consider our sources carefully. At least in homebrewing, we can often run our own experiments and see for ourselves. No so with so many other subjects that we need to consider- politics, climate science, energy policy, and all the rest.
Brew on!
Yup.
I don’t ferment lagers warm anymore. To my palate, they come out fruity, on several occasions of my own experiments as well as those of others. I’ve also tasted several kveik “lagers” which I find to be quite fruity, so the term “kveik lager” has become utterly laughable to me. And if others can’t taste their unlagerness, well… YMMV, have a nice day, etc.
I still find Brulosophy’s experiments to be useful and they do spark some ideas where further experimentation may be warranted. I just review their results from the standpoint of a much more reasonable p<0.20 instead of 0.05, so that I know what to look for when conducting or reviewing more experiments and more data.
Temperature control is every bit as important as good ingredients…yeast, barley, hops, etc.
I just find myself frustrated with the site.
Today, I was trying to find the best particulars out there about K-97 yeast. One of the top in a google search was exBEERiment | Yeast Comparison: Safale US-05 American Ale vs. Safale K-97 German Ale In An American Pale Ale | Brülosophy
Great concept - but look at the results and discussion area.
Summary
-majority of tasters could choose the odd beer out of the triangle - Okay good, now give me the tastings and interpretations of that difference…
-“To my palate, the beer fermented with K-97 was a bit more classically expressive and had a bit more character than the US-05, giving it in edge when it terms of personal preference. I also appreciated how the K-97 held a persistent head and left nice lacing on the glass. However, there was nothing wrong with the US-05 beer, I enjoyed drinking both just fine.”
What does “classically expressive” mean? more character? LOL which character?
“distinguishing characteristic of the K-97 fermented beer for some was that it seemed “inappropriate” for a Pale Ale, which I’m guessing can be attributed to the subtle unique yeast character it contributes.”
nothing concrete or specific here for me to use. ie. particular TASTES, esters, sweetness, hop flavour coming through.
“A quick note on some reports I’ve read from others claiming K-97 imparts a Hefeweizen-like character– that’s not really how I’d define it. The beer I fermented with it certainly was unique and more characterful than the US-05 fermented beer, but not in a way that would leave me convinced it was a Hefe. Although different, the beer was still clean with a subtle ester character I expect in styles like Kölsch.”
ok so not a hefe but “unique and characterful” and again “NOT LIKE A HEFE” “subtle ester” … so what ester flavour?
I’m having fun here, but after this whole experiment and brewing 10 gallons of beer. I learn less than if I read some online beer stores description of it.
If I had to have a go taste-wise at say W34/70, a yeast that is supposed to minimize esters and stuff even more than K97 - I would say from my experience: very fast to get a clean profile, hop bitterness is fairly well accentuated, hop flavour isnt super strong. High OG brewed, no esters detected but some hot alcohols when young. balanced between malt and hops
ale yeast should be easier than that, and to accentuate yeast flavours they might want to sample it as young as they possibly can as well.