29 replies to this topic

[SchwanzBrewer]

why would you expect that?

 

Because it's the nature of the beast. Homebrewers are notoriously unreliable with regards consistency. If the brulosophy guy brewed that same beer 10 times and did the experiment 10 times I would be surprised if he got the same result more than 50% of the time. A lot can go wrong.

 

I'm not trying to detract from his experiment either, but pier review is how you verify these things and the likelihood of 3 or 4 other people coming up with the same result I expect isn't very good.

 

Either way, it hasn't changed my view on what temperature to use with that yeast.

[positiveContact]

That's it. There's really nothing new there. That strain is well documented to work well up to 70F. The exberriment just kinda confirms what was already well known.

 

how about his WL800 experiment?

[3rd party JKor]

Even if it's strain dependent, we have fairly good verification that WLP800 and WLP830 work very well at ale temps.  That's a nice verification on its own.

[denny]

Because it's the nature of the beast. Homebrewers are notoriously unreliable with regards consistency. If the brulosophy guy brewed that same beer 10 times and did the experiment 10 times I would be surprised if he got the same result more than 50% of the time. A lot can go wrong.

 

I'm not trying to detract from his experiment either, but pier review is how you verify these things and the likelihood of 3 or 4 other people coming up with the same result I expect isn't very good.

 

Either way, it hasn't changed my view on what temperature to use with that yeast.

 

I agree.  That's one of the advantages of the multiple testers that Drew and I use.

[SchwanzBrewer]

I give the guy a lot of credit for doing these experiments though. I think it's awesome that he's trying determine these things.

[denny]

I give the guy a lot of credit for doing these experiments though. I think it's awesome that he's trying determine these things.

 

Totally!  A lot of my experiments aren't perfectly structured, either, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's nothing to be learned from them.

[Brauer]

 

He also ran one with WLP800 at 50F and 66F.  Same results.

 

https://brulosophy.c...riment-results/

I haven't gone as high as 70F, but Wy2124 and WLP830 both perform well and stay clean for me into the 60's. They seem to behave like the same strain, in my hands, and I use the two interchangeably. Certainly, this strain will work great into at least the low 60s. Maybe these results will finally get people to stop making pseudo-lagers with ale yeast.

 

Because it's the nature of the beast. Homebrewers are notoriously unreliable with regards consistency. If the brulosophy guy brewed that same beer 10 times and did the experiment 10 times I would be surprised if he got the same result more than 50% of the time. A lot can go wrong.

Some brewers do seem to have an unusually high rate of process failure, contamination and batches that need to be dumped. I don't get the impression that these guys are your average, "stumble through a hungover/drunken batch" kind of homebrewers, though. 

[Steve Urquell]

I haven't gone as high as 70F, but Wy2124 and WLP830 both perform well and stay clean for me into the 60's. They seem to behave like the same strain, in my hands, and I use the two interchangeably. Certainly, this strain will work great into at least the low 60s. Maybe these results will finally get people to stop making pseudo-lagers with ale yeast.

My thoughts exactly. I did get slight esters using W34/70 at 68F in a 1554 clone but they were less than ale yeast fermented at 62-64F. I've used 2124 and 2278 at 58-62F with very clean results as well.

[SchwanzBrewer]

 

 

Some brewers do seem to have an unusually high rate of process failure, contamination and batches that need to be dumped. I don't get the impression that these guys are your average, "stumble through a hungover/drunken batch" kind of homebrewers, though. 

 

 

There's a million things that can go wrong. Maybe "wrong" is the wrong word. There's a million ways to be inconsistent. Even among really good brewers, I don't think they brew every day or even every week for the most part. On top of that they hardly ever brew the same beer twice in a row. So it's tough to be consistent. It can be done, but it's very difficult to do.

[Brauer]

There's a million things that can go wrong. Maybe "wrong" is the wrong word. There's a million ways to be inconsistent. Even among really good brewers, I don't think they brew every day or even every week for the most part. On top of that they hardly ever brew the same beer twice in a row. So it's tough to be consistent. It can be done, but it's very difficult to do.

Sure, re-brewing recipes and brewing frequently can help develop consistency, but understanding how to control the variables and planning are just as important as practice.  I may not be coming from the same place as a lot of brewers, since I have developed a lot of procedures to make biological processes reproducible, but I don't find brewing to be that complex or difficult to control.

 

Like most brewers here, though, I assume, I start with a target mash temperature, volume and OG and hit them within a few percent. Of course I'm not constantly changing my equipment, I usually brew with a limited set of base malts that I like, and I almost always work within a 2-fold range of OGs. I'm not a "seat of the pants" brewers, either, and wouldn't really have any interest in brewing without having planned everything out to make sure that things don't go awry.