313 replies to this topic

[SchwanzBrewer]

Ken it's called confirmation bias and it happens all the time. The only way to be sure is to do the blind triangle tests.

 

I suggest they make a ten gallon batch with the stringent low O2 process. Start running wort off and gather 5 gallons like they describe, then feck everything up with regards to their low O2 process in the transfer of the second 5 gallons. Ferment the beers with the same schedule and yeast and packaging.

 

Then do some blind triangle tests to see if they can statistically pick out the different beer. They need to do this a few times with groups of people that don't know the process or anything about the beer.

 

If in fact there is statistical significance to tell the different beer/AND the tasting notes suggest that the low O2 beer was better, then they might have something. I won't comment either way on the process without that sort of confirmation because that would be speculation and opinion.

 

If they are willing to spend a year on this then they can spend a little more time to back up their findings before they declare victory.

[Murphy]

Ken it's called confirmation bias and it happens all the time. The only way to be sure is to do the blind triangle tests.

 

I suggest they make a ten gallon batch with the stringent low O2 process. Start running wort off and gather 5 gallons like they describe, then feck everything up with regards to their low O2 process in the transfer of the second 5 gallons. Ferment the beers with the same schedule and yeast and packaging.

 

Then do some blind triangle tests to see if they can statistically pick out the different beer. They need to do this a few times with groups of people that don't know the process or anything about the beer.

 

If in fact there is statistical significance to tell the different beer/AND the tasting notes suggest that the low O2 beer was better, then they might have something. I won't comment either way on the process without that sort of confirmation because that would be speculation and opinion.

 

If they are willing to spend a year on this then they can spend a little more time to back up their findings before they declare victory.

 

the short way of saying this is they need process validation 

[positiveContact]

Ken it's called confirmation bias and it happens all the time. The only way to be sure is to do the blind triangle tests.

 

I suggest they make a ten gallon batch with the stringent low O2 process. Start running wort off and gather 5 gallons like they describe, then feck everything up with regards to their low O2 process in the transfer of the second 5 gallons. Ferment the beers with the same schedule and yeast and packaging.

 

Then do some blind triangle tests to see if they can statistically pick out the different beer. They need to do this a few times with groups of people that don't know the process or anything about the beer.

 

If in fact there is statistical significance to tell the different beer/AND the tasting notes suggest that the low O2 beer was better, then they might have something. I won't comment either way on the process without that sort of confirmation because that would be speculation and opinion.

 

If they are willing to spend a year on this then they can spend a little more time to back up their findings before they declare victory.

 

tl/dr?

 

it seems to be lacking experimental evidence.

 

Ken it's called confirmation bias and it happens all the time. The only way to be sure is to do the blind triangle tests.

 

I suggest they make a ten gallon batch with the stringent low O2 process. Start running wort off and gather 5 gallons like they describe, then feck everything up with regards to their low O2 process in the transfer of the second 5 gallons. Ferment the beers with the same schedule and yeast and packaging.

 

Then do some blind triangle tests to see if they can statistically pick out the different beer. They need to do this a few times with groups of people that don't know the process or anything about the beer.

 

If in fact there is statistical significance to tell the different beer/AND the tasting notes suggest that the low O2 beer was better, then they might have something. I won't comment either way on the process without that sort of confirmation because that would be speculation and opinion.

 

If they are willing to spend a year on this then they can spend a little more time to back up their findings before they declare victory.

 

that would only be part of it.  I'm not sure if you read the pdf but there are so many aspects to this process that there are a lot of scenarios that would need to be tested individually.  using a copper IC?  pre-boiling and scrubbing the strike water of O2?  minimal O2 in the mash?  avoiding HSA?

 

a good first pass would be to do it exactly as described vs what most homebrewers do.  for instance I don't think most homebrewers purposely introduce O2 pre-boil but they don't avoid it either.  most homebrewers do avoid O2 post fermentation though.  so I guess really it's mostly the pre-fermentation stuff that I think would be a good first cut.  this would at least show that SOMETHING in there matters.  after that it would be unclear if it's all important or just some part(s).

Edited by Evil_Morty, 25 April 2016 - 01:17 PM.

[SchwanzBrewer]

tl/dr?

 

 

 

that would only be part of it.  I'm not sure if you read the pdf but there are so many aspects to this process that there are a lot of scenarios that would need to be tested individually.  using a copper IC?  pre-boiling and scrubbing the strike water of O2?  minimal O2 in the mash?  avoiding HSA?

 

a good first pass would be to do it exactly as described vs what most homebrewers do.  for instance I don't think most homebrewers purposely introduce O2 pre-boil but they don't avoid it either.  most homebrewers do avoid O2 post fermentation though.  so I guess really it's mostly the pre-fermentation stuff that I think would be a good first cut.  this would at least show that SOMETHING in there matters.  after that it would be unclear if it's all important or just some aspect.

 

The main premise of the article is that O2 pick up is so sensitive that any screw up in the process will mess up the beer. That should mean that messing up the process at wort transfer time should be sufficient to make a difference in the beer. So, if you are to design an experiment using the same wort, you need to do everything the same and the one place where you could cause a differential in the wort without sacrificing any low O2 wort would be at transfer.

 

If that isn't the case then their conclusion is invalid.

[Big Nake]

I guess I will never know because I am not going to boil my strike water and then cool it and mash in.  The time and extra energy and water that that takes is just not worth it to me, I like the beers I make just as much as I liked the beers I had in Germany.

Drez, you bring up an important point. I often say that my homebrewed beer is "good enough for me" and that is my fallback position in a lot of cases. If I didn't want to dedicate 2+ additional hours on decoction, I would probably say that my current mash schedule is working just fine for me, thank you very much. In many of my most recent batches, I have been VERY pleased with my beers. The idea that I could make them even better is interesting to me but this is a big adjustment for me to make so I guarantee that if I try it, it will not be without a lot of thought.

Here is something else and I'm just spitballing... I pour my strike water into my MT with no caution other than I don't want to burn myself. I just pour it. I just know that I'm getting all kinds of O2 in there. I stir the mash to eliminate doughballs. I recirc and run off. I pour the sparge water into the MT the same way. Stir. Recirc. Runoff. I boil pretty hard. I chill with copper and once I'm under 100°F, I stir even more to get more O2 into the mix. When I rack from kettle to primary the wort splashes through a strainer and then lands in the primary. Then I oxygenate with pure O2. That sounds like a lot of things that I'm doing that go against the low-O2 philosophy. But my guess is that they're not saying that these things will DESTROY your beer, just that the character of fresh malt and hops is taken away by the oxidation.

[denny]

The main point seems to be that they advocate using sulfites to reduce O2.  Well, I spent 2 years experimenting with using sulfites and ascorbic acid on various parts of my brewing to reduce O2 pickup.  This is not anything new.  It's been discussed for at least 5 years.  I found that neither made any difference in my beers.  That says to me that either I didn't have a problem to start with, or if I did, they did nothing to alleviate it.  Seems like if this is something that's been known for so long and nobody does it, there must be a reason.

 

And also let me say that these guys may be right, but until I see evidence other than "because we said so" I will remain skeptical.

[positiveContact]

The main premise of the article is that O2 pick up is so sensitive that any screw up in the process will mess up the beer. That should mean that messing up the process at wort transfer time should be sufficient to make a difference in the beer. So, if you are to design an experiment using the same wort, you need to do everything the same and the one place where you could cause a differential in the wort without sacrificing any low O2 wort would be at transfer.

 

If that isn't the case then their conclusion is invalid.

 

I agree with what you are saying.  I suspect disproving the overall conclusion (do one thing wrong and it all goes to hell) would be really easy.  I'd pick the one aspect that I thought was the least consequential and likely show no difference in the final product.

 

what I'm more interested in is a search through the various process steps to see if some of them actually do matter.  and if they do, which ones?  b/c if one of the easier process changes in there actually made my beer a little bit better I'd probably try it out.

[denny]

Ken it's called confirmation bias and it happens all the time. The only way to be sure is to do the blind triangle tests.

 

I suggest they make a ten gallon batch with the stringent low O2 process. Start running wort off and gather 5 gallons like they describe, then feck everything up with regards to their low O2 process in the transfer of the second 5 gallons. Ferment the beers with the same schedule and yeast and packaging.

 

Then do some blind triangle tests to see if they can statistically pick out the different beer. They need to do this a few times with groups of people that don't know the process or anything about the beer.

 

If in fact there is statistical significance to tell the different beer/AND the tasting notes suggest that the low O2 beer was better, then they might have something. I won't comment either way on the process without that sort of confirmation because that would be speculation and opinion.

 

If they are willing to spend a year on this then they can spend a little more time to back up their findings before they declare victory.

 

I give seminars on confirmation bias.  That's exactly what we see here.

[positiveContact]

The main point seems to be that they advocate using sulfites to reduce O2.  Well, I spent 2 years experimenting with using sulfites and ascorbic acid on various parts of my brewing to reduce O2 pickup.  This is not anything new.  It's been discussed for at least 5 years.  I found that neither made any difference in my beers.  That says to me that either I didn't have a problem to start with, or if I did, they did nothing to alleviate it.  Seems like if this is something that's been known for so long and nobody does it, there must be a reason.

 

And also let me say that these guys may be right, but until I see evidence other than "because we said so" I will remain skeptical.

 

maybe they just like the taste of sulfites

I give seminars on confirmation bias.  That's exactly what we see here.

 

I see confirmation bias in you seeing confirmation bias.

 

[SchwanzBrewer]

I agree with what you are saying.  I suspect disproving the overall conclusion (do one thing wrong and it all goes to hell) would be really easy.  I'd pick the one aspect that I thought was the least consequential and likely show no difference in the final product.

 

what I'm more interested in is a search through the various process steps to see if some of them actually do matter.  and if they do, which ones?  b/c if one of the easier process changes in there actually made my beer a little bit better I'd probably try it out.

 

Absolutely, but the original premise should be vetted first before you go chasing the rabbit down that hole.

[Steve Urquell]

You all know I do things a bit different by now. I have no problem doing things out of the box if I feel it will improve my beer. I do have a limit as to how much time I'm willing to spend brewing beer though. I'm not too open to adding time to my brewday. Tried decoction a few times and decided it wasn't worth the extra time spent.

I love that people are willing to do experiments and try new techniques though and wish them the best in doing so. I just have limits as to how much extra work I'm willing to do. I feel my beer is pretty good--when I'm not having crappy malt issues. Really don't feel the need to change my process at this point.

[cavman]

I see confirmation bias, but having never tried this it may have some truth. These guys really need to do triangle testing with an independent group though to see if there is any. I know this, if I spent 9 months trying to convince myself something i could probably do so.

[positiveContact]

so I'd have to add 10 campden tablets to my water??  holy cow!

[HVB]

so I'd have to add 10 campden tablets to my water??  holy cow!

[positiveContact]

wait, did I just read that the sparge water shouldn't be sprinkled from above?  so german breweries aren't fly sparging?

[HVB]

wait, did I just read that the sparge water shouldn't be sprinkled from above?  so german breweries aren't fly sparging?

I am sure they are all set up to be no-sparge.

[positiveContact]

what is really unfortunate here is that certain aspects of this may improve the beer but it's hard to tell which ones.

 

as a for instance, shouldn't my overnight mash be the worst thing ever?  it doesn't appear to be.

 

and how does one remove the air from the grain?  that seems relatively impossible for a homebrewer.

[neddles]

I am sure they are all set up to be no-sparge.

Speaking of no-sparge, where's Brauer? I thought this topic might bring him out of the woodwork.

[Big Nake]

Another slightly discouraging part of this is that even if you do everything properly and get this magical character in the beer, you're still supposed to enjoy the beer relatively quickly because the character fades in a very short time. I'm not fully understanding how that would be if the beer made it to the keg relatively untouched by O2 and the keg had very little O2 in it. But all of this stuff stacked on top of each other tells me that there is a giant mountain of prep work to pull this off and your payoff my be fleeting.

[positiveContact]

Speaking of no-sparge, where's Brauer? I thought this topic might bring him out of the woodwork.

 

good question.  I always like hearing what he has to say since he seems to have a professional background in some of this stuff.

 

Another slightly discouraging part of this is that even if you do everything properly and get this magical character in the beer, you're still supposed to enjoy the beer relatively quickly because the character fades in a very short time. I'm not fully understanding how that would be if the beer made it to the keg relatively untouched by O2 and the keg had very little O2 in it. But all of this stuff stacked on top of each other tells me that there is a giant mountain of prep work to pull this off and your payoff my be fleeting.

 

how fleeting are we talking?  I may have missed that part.