13 replies to this topic

[positiveContact]

https://www.experime...ast-1056-wlp001

 

I thought this was a pretty good experiment given what we have to work with as homebrewers.

 

One thing I guess I don't like is that any time you make 2 beers there is a chance they'll somehow be different for unintended reasons.  For instance I'd be interested to see this experiment run where everyone pitches two different vials of WL001 into 2 fermenters (containing the same wort).  Let's say they have to acquire the WL001 two different ways.  Maybe one is ordered from an online shop and the other is purchased from an LHBS.  I have a feeling that this alone might make enough detectible difference between the two batches.  We've all experienced variability when using the same strain of yeast.

[denny]

https://www.experime...ast-1056-wlp001

 

I thought this was a pretty good experiment given what we have to work with as homebrewers.

 

One thing I guess I don't like is that any time you make 2 beers there is a chance they'll somehow be different for unintended reasons.  For instance I'd be interested to see this experiment run where everyone pitches two different vials of WL001 into 2 fermenters (containing the same wort).  Let's say they have to acquire the WL001 two different ways.  Maybe one is ordered from an online shop and the other is purchased from an LHBS.  I have a feeling that this alone might make enough detectible difference between the two batches.  We've all experienced variability when using the same strain of yeast.

 

I agree that you're building in a difference here.  I'm pretty sure that each brewer acquired both yeasts from the same source and they were dated as closely as possible.  Of course, in a situation like this there will always be uncontrolled variables, but remember...this is about brewing beer at home, not curing cancer.

[positiveContact]

I agree that you're building in a difference here.  I'm pretty sure that each brewer acquired both yeasts from the same source and they were dated as closely as possible.  Of course, in a situation like this there will always be uncontrolled variables, but remember...this is about brewing beer at home, not curing cancer.

 

you guys can only do so much on the yeast handling stuff.  you really don't have any control there so obviously not your fault.

 

it just raises a little extra doubt in my mind that maybe the yeast strain wasn't the difference.  the results were already pretty close to not significant.

 

that one guy where you completely removed him from the results is just an extreme example.  any of your other testers could have had a similar contamination issue to a lesser extent in one of their batches.  in a blonde ale like this tasting problems should be easier compared to a lot of beers.

[denny]

you guys can only do so much on the yeast handling stuff.  you really don't have any control there so obviously not your fault.

 

it just raises a little extra doubt in my mind that maybe the yeast strain wasn't the difference.  the results were already pretty close to not significant.

 

that one guy where you completely removed him from the results is just an extreme example.  any of your other testers could have had a similar contamination issue to a lesser extent in one of their batches.  in a blonde ale like this tasting problems should be easier compared to a lot of beers.

 

That batch was obviously infected.  If the yeast handling was the difference, then it was incredibly consistent.

[positiveContact]

Why do you think Jason saw better clarity with the 1056?

[positiveContact]

I wish I knew the answer to your question about summing up the results from all of the groups.  It seems a little less than kosher but I feel like there should still be some value in there.

[denny]

Why do you think Jason saw better clarity with the 1056?

 

Hard to say...maybe process, maybe something else

I wish I knew the answer to your question about summing up the results from all of the groups.  It seems a little less than kosher but I feel like there should still be some value in there.

 

I guess I'm only looking at data that isn't obviously screwed up.  We all discussed how to deal with that, so we presented it both ways.

[positiveContact]

Hard to say...maybe process, maybe something else

 

I guess I'm only looking at data that isn't obviously screwed up.  We all discussed how to deal with that, so we presented it both ways.

 

I'm not talking about throwing out the obviously infected batch data.  I mean summing up across the rest of the groups into one super group.

[denny]

I'm not talking about throwing out the obviously infected batch data.  I mean summing up across the rest of the groups into one super group.

 

Ah, then if I understand correctly, my answer would be that summing the data is the reason we wanted to have a larger pool of results than a single experiment, as Marshall does.  Does that make any sense?

[positiveContact]

Ah, then if I understand correctly, my answer would be that summing the data is the reason we wanted to have a larger pool of results than a single experiment, as Marshall does.  Does that make any sense?

 

It does.  The issue is that each individual group adds a new variable (the brewer and that particular 2 batches of beer) into the mix.  Maybe it's fine though.  I'm not really an expert on that kind of stuff.

[denny]

It does.  The issue is that each individual group adds a new variable (the brewer and that particular 2 batches of beer) into the mix.  Maybe it's fine though.  I'm not really an expert on that kind of stuff.

 

Yeah, that's kinda what we want.  It averages out the variations and helps alleviate the chance of a single brewer throwing things off.

[positiveContact]

Yeah, that's kinda what we want.  It averages out the variations and helps alleviate the chance of a single brewer throwing things off.

 

solution:  get everyone together and blend their beer together

[denny]

solution:  get everyone together and blend their beer together

 

Damn, why didn't I think of that! 

[positiveContact]

that's why I'm evil.