Gordon Strong vs Brulosophy

[strange-steve]

@IainM I think you've hit the nail on the head there, the better your brewing practice is overall, the wider your margin for error becomes (although the Brulosophy short and shoddy method may not entirely back that up). However therein lies the problem as I see it. If people put too much credence on the xbmts then their overall brewing practice may not be good enough to give a reasonable margin for error. I don't blame Brulosophy for that though, because they are very clear in their conclusions that the results are case specific.

As a purely anecdotal experience, when I first started reading the Brulosophy site, it did change how I brewed, I was a little more lax about things, I cut a few corners etc. But I am convinced that the quality of my beers dropped during that time. However, I rarely brew the same recipe twice so I wasn't comparing like for like and it could be coincidence or even bias at play.

But I go back to my original point, the best brewers I know are meticulous about every detail of brewing and for me the quality of their beers is convincing enough, and in my opinion if the likes of Strong, Palmer, Zainasheff, Daniels, Noonan etc were inattentive to detail, they would not have the recognition they have.

@Gunge if you are happy with what you brew then keep doing what you're doing and nobody can tell you you're wrong. However some brewers are interested in trying to improve the quality of their beer, every time I brew I try to do it a little better than the previous one. Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not saying my beers are better than yours, just that perhaps what you want from brewing is not what I want from brewing. Personally I like having my beer evaluated and critiqued by an impartial taster because I find that helps me spot flaws that I or my mates would miss and that then helps me improve my next batch.

 

[Gunge]

@Gunge if you are happy with what you brew then keep doing what you're doing and nobody can tell you you're wrong. However some brewers are interested in trying to improve the quality of their beer, every time I brew I try to do it a little better than the previous one. Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not saying my beers are better than yours, just that perhaps what you want from brewing is not what I want from brewing. Personally I like having my beer evaluated and critiqued by an impartial taster because I find that helps me spot flaws that I or my mates would miss and that then helps me improve my next batch.

I fully agree with you - I was being a little playful! But.... some folk think that they have to do things the strictly 'scientific' way and if they don't do as some expert or other says, their beer will be swill. Your beer is probably better than mine as a result of your labours but I'm unlikely to taste it so will never know! But ye I'm more than happy with mine and, these days, want to get it brewed asap but to a high standard. For the most part I succeed!

 

[MyQul]

I fully agree with you - I was being a little playful! But.... some folk think that they have to do things the strictly 'scientific' way and if they don't do as some expert or other says, their beer will be swill. Your beer is probably better than mine as a result of your labours but I'm unlikely to taste it so will never know! But ye I'm more than happy with mine and, these days, want to get it brewed asap but to a high standard. For the most part I succeed!

I think we've all got different brewing goals. Part of what makes this hobby great is although we're essentially all doing the same thing, we can do it in a million different ways to suit our needs and desires (and wallet)

 

[Sadfield]

I fully agree with you - I was being a little playful! But.... some folk think that they have to do things the strictly 'scientific' way and if they don't do as some expert or other says, their beer will be swill. Your beer is probably better than mine as a result of your labours but I'm unlikely to taste it so will never know! But ye I'm more than happy with mine and, these days, want to get it brewed asap but to a high standard. For the most part I succeed!

I find its fun to do it either way, and beer is pretty forgiving. Even when I've done a AG without doing the boil. It's up to the brewer to decide how scientific to approach brewing and very difficult to brew without applying a little science. The issue here is that Brulosopher leads people to the conclusion that the established, well performed scientific research, and centuries of collective brewers knowledge, makes no difference.

Does make my eyes roll when I see the word 'proven' and Brulosopher in the same sentence. Although he does make people question what they do, which is good.

"Inspiration is the impact of a fact on a well-prepared mind" Louis Pasteur

 

[Bigcol49]

The issue here is that Brulosopher leads people to the conclusion that the established, well performed scientific research, and centuries of collective brewers knowledge, makes no difference.

Hi!
I hate to disagree with you, but I do.
In the first place, I don't feel "led" by the Brulosophers; I read their articles with interest, think about the results and consider whether they should influence my brewing processes.
I also don't believe that they are advising homebrewers to ignore science and brewer's knowledge. They are questioning accepted procedures and investigating whether alternative procedures produce similar results (and, after all, isn't science based upon questioning what has been accepted as true?)
I find their conclusions to be fair - they are often not statistically significant, albeit with a small sample and they prove nothing.
Many of their conclusions are based upon subjective testing, so must be regarded critically by the discerning reader.
However, they offer tested methodologies that might be acceptable to homebrewers whose circumstances may not permit the standard brewing procedures.
It's up to each reader to critically consider each experiment and decide whether it's worth rejecting or given further consideration.
Sorry - mammoth post!

 

[Sadfield]

All valid. Sorry, perhaps I should have said there is a risk of people being led. Probably not their fault, but they do have a reputation of myth busters about them that doesn't correlate with the statistical significance of their xbmts.

"Inspiration is the impact of a fact on a well-prepared mind" Louis Pasteur

 

[mabrungard]

For the average person, its probably true that many of the things that Brulosophy tests, are indistinguishable. Unfortunately, that doesn't make their conclusions true.

There are several things that should be done in those testing trials to make them more definitive. The first thing is that the tasters should be tested and rated for their abilities to detect the differences that the testing trial is trying to ascertain. Second, only qualified and sensitized tasters should be used. Third, tasters should know what they are assessing and their assessments should continue to be via triangle testing (find the differing sample in three).

All breweries and testing services that offer this sort of assessment use the parameters above in order to properly assess if a process or material improvement produces a positive improvement to the beer. Brulosophy and others' results are very suspect. I would trust the keenly trained palates of people such as Strong and Zainesheff over faulty trials.

 

[IainM]

Another important aspect to consider when reading Brulosophy is that the hombrew setting isn't as controlled as commercial, so there is greater variation between batches even those brewed with the same recipe, process and ingredients. I'd be interested in some control xBmts where they brew identical beers. That would help establish some baseline variance with which to compare their actual xBmts; if the control xBmts are all indistinguishable then you'd know the chance of a false positive is low and should pay attention when they do get a positive result. If the controls often show significant differences then you know that each individual xBmt should be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

[Bigcol49]

All valid. Sorry, perhaps I should have said there is a risk of people being led. Probably not their fault, but they do have a reputation of myth busters about them that doesn't correlate with the statistical significance of their xbmts.

Hi!
I agree with you that a non-discerning reader may accept their findings without critical consideration of the issues, and, yes, their results don't prove a thing.
The trouble is that there is a tendency for other commentators to say things like, "You don't need to boil for 60 minutes" and link to Brulosophy, yet that is not the conclusion that I came to when I read that particular experiment.
I still enjoy reading their pages - they do make me think about efficient practice, and perhaps I'll try some of their experiments myself.

 

[foxbat]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the best brewers I know from around the Irish brew clubs are all pedantic when it comes to brewing, likewise famous and successful brewers such as Zainasheff and Strong.

I think being pedantic about the little things is how to lift your results from good to great. When you're already repeatedly brewing palatable beer you've solved the 90% question and to get to the 95% or higher level you have to sweat the details. Not just one detail but all of them.

It would be interesting to see Brulosophy do some group tests of things we believe to be related. For example, water profiles and pH and hop flavour extraction. i.e. combine up some of the little things and see how they add up.

 

[Braufather]

Yes, What they could do is a test a brew with all their standard short cuts in the same batch against a brew following best practice to an anal level. Would be interesting how that came out.

To cover all the combinations and permutations might be a bit of a mammoth effort but this would at least set the parameters

 

[strange-steve]

Yes, What they could do is a test a brew with all their standard short cuts in the same batch against a brew following best practice to an anal level. Would be interesting how that came out.

To cover all the combinations and permutations might be a bit of a mammoth effort but this would at least set the parameters

It's not quite the same, but they have done a few "short and shoddy" tests here.

 

[Braufather]

It's not quite the same, but they have done a few "short and shoddy" tests here.

Just looked at the British golden ale example. Short and shoddy so didn’t use any fermentation temperature control.

Fair enough, but then cold crashed and used geletin? Hardly back to basics, surely anyone who cold crashes will probably be able to control fermentation temps?

 

[Braufather]

Hi!
I hate to disagree with you, but I do.
In the first place, I don't feel "led" by the Brulosophers; I read their articles with interest, think about the results and consider whether they should influence my brewing processes.
I also don't believe that they are advising homebrewers to ignore science and brewer's knowledge. They are questioning accepted procedures and investigating whether alternative procedures produce similar results (and, after all, isn't science based upon questioning what has been accepted as true?)
I find their conclusions to be fair - they are often not statistically significant, albeit with a small sample and they prove nothing.
Many of their conclusions are based upon subjective testing, so must be regarded critically by the discerning reader.
However, they offer tested methodologies that might be acceptable to homebrewers whose circumstances may not permit the standard brewing procedures.
It's up to each reader to critically consider each experiment and decide whether it's worth rejecting or given further consideration.
Sorry - mammoth post!

Actually I was quite happy to be led by them as I thought they seemed to know what they were doing. Looks like I may have to review that.

One experiment seemed to show it doesn’t matter how much trub you take from kettle to fv, and another that primary and secondary can be done in the one fv, and another and that 4 weeks is ok to leave it.

So on the back of that my system doesn’t filter out much trub and I leave it in the one fermenter for up to 4 weeks and even dry hop in that one too for final week.

All 3 together. Starting to doubt it now:hmm

 

[strange-steve]

Actually I was quite happy to be led by them as I thought they seemed to know what they were doing. Looks like I may have to review that.

Likewise, and as I said in an earlier post I believe the quality of my beers dipped a little as a result.

 

[geigercntr]

As a statistics graduate, I tend to wince when I read the Brulosophy stuff. I'd prefer to see well over a hundred samples, especially as they use lots of different tasting panels and should be considered meta-data.

Yeah, their analyses always struck me as a little odd too. Not a stats grad myself, but someone who knows a bit about a very narrow range of stats methods. I prefer the 'Igor' approach on Experimental Brewing where they have a lot of folk repeating the same xbmts and analysing across different tasting panels.

No matter how many experienced tasters the brulosophy folk have, its really only a sample size of 1 tasting panel*

*caveat - I reserve the right to be incorrect

 

[chthon]

Triangle testing

Some of their experiments should possibly be repeated to see if there are other outcomes, possibly e.g. by using more consistent different groups of tasters, e.g. one with untrained people, and one with trained people, and in different brewer's associations.

But what the expectancy of their tests really means is this. If everybody just would guess, then the outcome would be fifty/fifty. E.g. if twenty people would apply for a test, and the result is just guessed, then there would be a mean of 10/10 on both sides.

The numbers they present show the deviation from this mean. The more the numbers shift to one side, the less chance is involved. Of course, there is always a slight chance that you get a deviation from this. This is expressed by the p-factor, which says "There is still a small chance that these numbers are also purely obtained by random guessing".

Their main caveat is always: do they obtain the beer they like themselves. That is e.g. the thing with the cold crashing and the gelatin. Marschall Schott just likes to always drink clear beer. It is something he admits. And for him this is part of his standard routine. One could say that this is maybe even the most tested part of all their xBmt's together (except when doing NEIPA).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_testing#Triangle

 

[Ajhutch]

Triangle testing

Some of their experiments should possibly be repeated to see if there are other outcomes, possibly e.g. by using more consistent different groups of tasters, e.g. one with untrained people, and one with trained people, and in different brewer's associations.

But what the expectancy of their tests really means is this. If everybody just would guess, then the outcome would be fifty/fifty. E.g. if twenty people would apply for a test, and the result is just guessed, then there would be a mean of 10/10 on both sides.

The numbers they present show the deviation from this mean. The more the numbers shift to one side, the less chance is involved. Of course, there is always a slight chance that you get a deviation from this. This is expressed by the p-factor, which says "There is still a small chance that these numbers are also purely obtained by random guessing".

Their main caveat is always: do they obtain the beer they like themselves. That is e.g. the thing with the cold crashing and the gelatin. Marschall Schott just likes to always drink clear beer. It is something he admits. And for him this is part of his standard routine. One could say that this is maybe even the most tested part of all their xBmt's together (except when doing NEIPA).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_testing#Triangle

In a triangle test, pure chance is one third not 50/50


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braufather]

For me the difficulty is that there is seemingly a disagreement about everything in brewing and as a new brewer you have to start somewhere.
These guys seemed credible, take brewing seriously and the slimming down of a lot of the more tedious tasks means brewing was enjoyable as opposed to being a chore.

It has got me thinking about what I might change though- which of the factors are most important?

There has to be some processes that everyone agrees on.

Then others that most people agree are needed.

A third category where opinion is split which I guess is where most of the debate is centred,

And a fourth category of processes that most agree that are not of any real perceived benefit, or not worth the effort/expense.

currently best practices ( I think) I adopt include

Mash ph control via gypsum and calcium chloride
Using recommend amounts of liquid yeast
Quick chill and pitching and correct temps
Brew fridge for fermentation
Cold crash

Things that may not be best practice, but seem ok with brulosophy and result in an easier process include

I don’t always aerate, although sometimes do with aquarium pump ( can’t notice any difference)
I don’t whirl pool so take a lot of tub into FV
only ever use one FV
don’t use hop spiders( unless doing big hop stand)
chuck dry hops straight in FV for last week
leave brew in FV for 4 weeks before racking
just started using cronies and don’t purge before filling, but do purge after.
still use good plastic FVs ( planning to get a SS brewbucket, but quite happy with my plastic spiedels at the mo)

I would like to make the best beer possible, so what should I change?

 

[dan125]

They discuss some of the issues brought up in the thread in the latest Q&A podcast episode - it was quite a good listen in the car today