Looking for homebrewing gift ideas? Check out our previous gift guides here or here!
Also, if you enjoy BrewUnited, please consider doing your Amazon shopping via our affiliate link!
Also, if you enjoy BrewUnited, please consider doing your Amazon shopping via our affiliate link!
Cheers duders.
Posted 34 days ago.
As I more colorfully put it in the sub, if you make beer using near-ideal techniques, changing up one factor for the worse isn't going to make a difference (OK, maybe if the factor is oxidation). Of course, I've said it before.
There hasn't been anything so far that would cause me to change my practices, with the possible exception of the trub experiments validating my reading on the benefit of cold trub in the fermentor.
I'm starting to feel like /u/Walrasian does in the sub -- because of the popularity of the blog, and the extent to which people are just taking them as the new conventional wisdom even though they don't replicate the high-quality brewing techniques, may be leading brewers to use poor techniques.
Posted 34 days ago.
That is a good point. It would suck for people to read "nothing really impacts the beer" and never try to improve their process.
Posted 34 days ago.
I've been trying to gently prod Marshall about how he feels about people taking the xbmts as gospel.
If it were me, I'd have to be much more clear that the xbmts are not conclusive and do not conform to similarity testing so taking them as conclusive proof of anything is bad practice.
In short, I would have serious concern that I would be doing more harm to the hobby than good.
Posted 34 days ago.
Well, to be fair, Marshall is super clear that he does not claim that these are scientific findings.
Posted 34 days ago.
To be fair... people only read the headlines, well most people. I am not sure how much responsibility lies with Brulosophy when people co-opt the results to justify poor practice.
I think Marshall and the crew could go further to emphasize that while the results are what they are - they are anedotal at best. We tend to accept those things that harmonize with our experiences, and argue against those that do not. This result can easily be picked apart, which looks primarily at organoleptic sensory analysis in what is clearly a very hoppy beer, not a subtle lightly hopped and ester forward beer. I am not being critical - there is a ton of value exploring these old best practices and pointing out that many of our processes are not necessary. It's a good article however.
Nothing here changes my mind about oxygenation. Perhaps because I have a superstition that I am successful with my method or perhaps because there is tremendous data and practical application data-points that show properly oxygenated wort give the yeast a leg up in healthy propagation. Statistically Ray proved that with that beer, wort composition and hops schedule, there was no discernible advantage. Over 20 re-brews and evaluation, the data points will shift and a few beers will fall outside the norms as anomaly.
Posted 34 days ago.
Agreed with olan, it's stated pretty often that these are single variable tests, which provide single points of data, and are evidence but not deciding factors. Its a people and popularity issue, I think. Brulosophy is a popular blog, especially on reddit, so a lot of people think "shiny data!".
That said, I rarely see people say "I'm going to stop temperature control now!". We see a lot of complaints, a lot of people who think the data is interesting, but I rarely see anyone taking the findings as gospel.
Posted 34 days ago.
I see people taking the findings as gospel all the time. In fact, Marshall himself has complained about how people have mis-cited his xBmts as proving something.
Sure, not that many people are maybe stopping a process they have invested money in, but you could certainly see people not adding equipment or processes. A guy on that thread said at 2 am he was wondering whether he really needed to aerate (he did anyway), but with this xBmt you could see a lot of people get lazy.Posted 34 days ago.
That's one of the better suggestions I've seen, Chino.
Posted 34 days ago.
I almost never see that, I guess I don't go through the comments enough. Huh, always interesting to see your own practices lead to incorrect assumptions. Great point though Chino, thanks!
Posted 34 days ago.
"Marshall could maybe highlight more how doing everything else perfectly is a condition precedent to being able to achieve a "no difference" result."
We don't actually know that it is true yet, though. I too get a bit bothered by people taking things wrong, but people do that shit ALL THE FUCKING TIME. It isn't just homebrewing, it is every evening news story of "here's some science that y'all should misinterpret". It is every forum, community, etc... in every hobby, ever.
I guess I am just baffled how, WRT this latest test, we can claim BOTH: 1. It doesn't matter because of the rest of the process, and 2. it is encouraging bad practice. I really think it has to be one of those two, and not really both. Yes, it looks like I could get away without aeration, IN MY BREWHOUSE, on MY RECIPE, with MY YEAST STARTER PROCESS.
Posted 34 days ago.
Actually, isn't it true? You do everything else perfect as the control.
The problem is that, as mentioned, starters do give you some aeration. So it's not exactly a precise line.
Posted 34 days ago.
I am not arrogant enough to think I do "Everything right" ... though, I do think I have a pretty solid process overall. Need my own mill though. Fuck the LHBS.
Posted 34 days ago.
Have you offered to wine and dine the LHBS?
Wait...
Posted 34 days ago.
Sorry, I am drunk
Posted 34 days ago.