Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - brulosopher

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 34
1
Without stepping on any toes, I would say they published it, not because of "investment in the process" because they did exactly what they set out to do fulfilling the outlined Purpose and Methods.

I have no doubt this will exbeeriment will be repeated, hopefully with a smaller gravity difference, but I've yet to see any constructive suggestions as to how to avoid this in the future, and name calling for Jake is pretty low.

If they were to not publish this experiment, it would not be ethical, nor scientifically sound. Sure, "no one would know but them". That's not the point.

Excerpt from APS guidelines for professional conduct, since I'm familiar with them and know that all of the ethical guidelines for chemists, and other scientific fields have similar statements.

"Fabrication of data or selective reporting of data with the intent to mislead or deceive is an egregious departure from the expected norms of scientific conduct, as is the theft of data or research results from others."

Side note: I'm more surprised in the attenuation differences. 1.044 to 1.014 for 68% and 1.035 to 1.006 for 82%.

This isn't a case of selective reporting of data. The fact that the beers are completely different in OG, FG and attenuation makes it hard to give any supporting evidence, one way or another, to any sort of hypothesis proposed. If your experiments don't work in some consistent, repeatable way to begin with, or you don't have a way to explain the inconsistencies, you don't publish - at least that's how I was trained as a chemist.

Those differences being a function of the variable tested, LODO, is the main reason we wouldn't trash the data. It's not our place to explain the inconsistencies, in fact our hope is that we can get closer to better explanations by sharing all of our data without censorship.

Plus, it's just beer!

And I agree, spunding has had a terrific influence on my beers.

I have all but one of the parts for my spunding valves and I can't seem to find them anywhere! Urgh...


There is a slew of collective experience as counterpoint to this single experiment though. People across 4 forums that I know having great success, zero process issues and reporting the production of great beer.

Not to mention the competition results starting to come in. There is a member of the GBF who just scored a 44.5 on his first competition entry. Plus at least 4 others there with a pile of medals that I know of.
So on the bright side, regardless of the damage done by bad pseudo science, in the end low oxygen brewing science will more then likely be vindicated in competition. I doubt the deniers will be able to tamp that down.
[/quote]

I scored a 41 on a German Pils in 2015 NHC that was fermented with unrinsed Kölsch yeast slurry.

I scored a 41 on a Vienna Lager in 2016 NHC that was fermented at ale temps with W-34/70.

I'm just not convinced competition scores are a great gauge of one process being better than another.

I think that analyzing the experiment and trying to troubleshoot the inconsistencies is still a worthwhile discussion. I think there were some real great technical exchanges in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Couldn't agree more. This is why we keep doing this sh!t

I apologize to the other forum members for being a big part of taking this thread in a contentious direction. The brulosophy experiment and subsequent comments of Marshal basically implying mass delusion of 50 or so of the best brewers there are.. made my blood boil.  But more importantly there is a lot of good information on the LoDO process being exchanged and I see now that it's getting drowned out under the angry noise. I gotta step away from from this and let my blood pressure come down a bit.

I certainly never intended to imply such a thing and apologize if that's how something I said came across. It's just beer, mate, no need to get angry

I would say it's NOT if you can get a great crush with husks intact. It's just an easy way to make that happen if you boil it down. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey Bryan, is this something that can be accomplished by simply widening the mill gap?

Some other things:

- We will continue to explore LODO, I think it's fascinating and think it could potentially be a game changer for brewers, despite my occasional complaints with the way the method has been presented. Kudos to the GBF and LOB crews for their dedication to Bavarian Lager brewing!

- Will someone coming to HBC PLEASE bring me a good example of a LODO beer?! I'll hook you up with cool things!

2
Hey.. let's get Jake to do the lodo exbeeriment because he's done it a bunch of times and never gotten it right.

Or maybe he has.

If that's the case then everyone who has said they managed to do it correctly is lying about it. I wonder which is more plausible?

Not lying, just biased by investment in the process.

If we truly believed that, we wouldn't have tested it out.


3
The efficiency drop is due to the low mash temp of the Low Oxygen batch, which made it fall BELOW the gelatization temp for the malt.

Except Jake has brewed using LODO methods many times with different mash temps and he regularly gets lower efficiency.

4
I'll add another 2 cents:

The nice thing about hydrogen sulfide is that it is volatile, and given a few weeks in a fermenter, it will fly away to undetectable levels, most of the time.

That's a good point.

I've made 50 gallons of beer using LoDo methods since deciding to give it a whirl last November.    No sulfur in any of the beers I've made.   But, I've also not spunded any of them and have let them sit at least 3 weeks in the fermenter.   However, I've also made a couple of ales that I kegged at 2 weeks with no sulfur either.

So you're not doing the full LODO method, which requires spunding afaik, yet still experiencing improvement? I find that very interesting.

Maybe I'm just lucky?   Heck, I'll take it.     I don't view any of the LoDo steps as "required".   I've just tried to incorporate as many of the suggestions as I easily can- water deoxygenation, SMB, ascorbic acid,  Brewtan B, mash cap.  Still using a copper CFC.      However, I'm sitting here sipping a helles I brewed in December (the second of two 5 gallon kegs) and it's not as awesome as it was a month ago.  Still really good, but it's lost some of the great grain smell and flavor.    Might have to brew smaller batches more often.    :)    I can do that.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty certain spunding is a crucial LODO component, without which you'll erase all you worked to accomplish beforehand. Can someone please let me know if I'm missing something here? Is it possible to get "it" without spunding or skipping other steps for that matter?

The hot side steps are essential. The flavors you preserve on the hot side can be extended for varying periods of time depending on your cold side techniques. Do you have to spund? No but the flavor longevity will be affected.

We've advocated and outlined a step-wise/phased implementation at LOB.com. Many have tried it and used the blog posts as a "foot in the door" to the methods. Just like any other process you implement it on your own terms and can see improvements with each step. Some start small and some go "whole hog" out of the gate. Both parties seem to be seeing results. Varying results (as far as preservation of flavors/flavor longevity is concerned), but results nonetheless.

That's very interesting news to me, thanks for the update! So what you're saying is that a person can get away with cutting some corners and still produce the "it" character? Since the only thing I'm missing at this point is the stainless IC, I may have to give it a try!

5
I'll add another 2 cents:

The nice thing about hydrogen sulfide is that it is volatile, and given a few weeks in a fermenter, it will fly away to undetectable levels, most of the time.

That's a good point.

I've made 50 gallons of beer using LoDo methods since deciding to give it a whirl last November.    No sulfur in any of the beers I've made.   But, I've also not spunded any of them and have let them sit at least 3 weeks in the fermenter.   However, I've also made a couple of ales that I kegged at 2 weeks with no sulfur either.

So you're not doing the full LODO method, which requires spunding afaik, yet still experiencing improvement? I find that very interesting.

Maybe I'm just lucky?   Heck, I'll take it.     I don't view any of the LoDo steps as "required".   I've just tried to incorporate as many of the suggestions as I easily can- water deoxygenation, SMB, ascorbic acid,  Brewtan B, mash cap.  Still using a copper CFC.      However, I'm sitting here sipping a helles I brewed in December (the second of two 5 gallon kegs) and it's not as awesome as it was a month ago.  Still really good, but it's lost some of the great grain smell and flavor.    Might have to brew smaller batches more often.    :)    I can do that.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty certain spunding is a crucial LODO component, without which you'll erase all you worked to accomplish beforehand. Can someone please let me know if I'm missing something here? Is it possible to get "it" without spunding or skipping other steps for that matter?

My hunch is that if you weren't claiming to prefer your "LODO" beer more, you'd be catching quite a bit of flack for not doing it correctly. The silence given your admission of cutting corners is rather curious.

To me, comparing a beer that has a sulfur aroma, and one that doesn't are two totally different beers, and invalidates the intention of the original experiment. It's obvious that his system is tight enough to not have to add 55 ppm of SMB.

Some tweaking needs to be done, and a proper re-test needs to be performed. The only thing we've learned is that excess SMB left in fermentation results in sulfur, which is already known.

Let's hope this kind of inadequate process and information doesn't get immaturely released before proper thought and review is put into place. To me this is just an attempt at getting some website hits because of the hot topic.

First off, you're assuming Jake's perception of sulfur was accurate; he's one person who thought that, I didn't pick it up at all in the samples he sent me, and we don't survey participants on their specific perceptions. The beers were significantly different, supporting the claims of GBF/LOB. You know as well as I do that if preference had gone the other way, there wouldn't be any of this questioning. With that said, the preference thing, which certainly flies in the face of claims some have made that LODO is universally preferred, simply supports the fairly well established fact that preference is subjective.

We'll continue exploring LODO because we're interested in it, even if people question our methodology and results when they don't align with their opinion.

And please, replicate! It's easy AND it'll help us all better understand things!

6
I'll add another 2 cents:

The nice thing about hydrogen sulfide is that it is volatile, and given a few weeks in a fermenter, it will fly away to undetectable levels, most of the time.

That's a good point.

I've made 50 gallons of beer using LoDo methods since deciding to give it a whirl last November.    No sulfur in any of the beers I've made.   But, I've also not spunded any of them and have let them sit at least 3 weeks in the fermenter.   However, I've also made a couple of ales that I kegged at 2 weeks with no sulfur either.

So you're not doing the full LODO method, which requires spunding afaik, yet still experiencing improvement? I find that very interesting.

7
The gravity difference between the trials is remarkable. I'm trying to understand how the process or SMB could affect that to that degree. There is no doubt that the gravity difference would markedly alter the beer flavor and perception.

I appreciate the author mentioning the honey notes in the regular beer version. Unfortunately that note is a sign of oxidation. I'm curious if the beers can be retasted in a few months to assess if the longevity of the beers is affected.

I didn't brew this beer but I did taste it, no honey imo, though iirc, the LODO folks use "honey" to describe the character they get from a LODO wort/beer, no?

So, to the comments tjhat they should have made a lager to test it, Marshall said this in the comments...."We consulted with a major proponent of LODO while designing this xBmt, he assured us the benefits would be seen in Kölsch or pretty much any other beer style. That said, when we revisit it, it will likely be with a light lager."  Also..."We specifically asked about Kölsch."

It was Bryan here in this forum (sorry no link, at Disneyland).

Both batches stirred equally so the OG difference can't be attributed to that.  " I did in fact stir the lodo mash at the same intervals as the non lodo. SMB used is sufficient to protect against this."

Got it!

This is a good experiment from my perspective, and the results are not surprising - though perhaps a little premature from the perspective of "quality experiments".  I was also in the same boat last year, and with experience comes process adjustment and development which ultimately lead to improved success.  I believe it's once you are able to produce successful low oxygen batches that this experiment should be revisited.

As for sulfury beer - the ultimate detriment to this experiment and some low oxygen batches - sulfites are simply a means to an end at the moment, and will certainly be replaced with an alternative, yet equally effective scavenger comes along.  It's too bad that the "defacto standard" beer style (a lager of all styles) was not chosen for this published experiment (an ale).

@bayareabrewer: that's the case with every bru-cru (and experimental brewing) experiment - "discussions as to how the trial was done incorrectly".

But it's supposedly equally viable with any style, right?  And there isn't a vast difference between a kolsch and a helles.

That's what I've been told.

8
The low oxygen brewing method, aka LODO, is purported by some to be the only way to produce unique German lager character on the homebrew scale. We were curious and decided to put it to the test. Results are in!

http://brulosophy.com/2017/04/10/the-lodo-effect-evaluating-the-low-oxygen-brewing-method-exbeeriment-results/

9
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Beer darkening with oxidation
« on: March 31, 2017, 07:57:12 AM »
(And actually, it is just a little surprising it darkened that much.)

My thought, exactly. I've seen the darkening effects presumably caused by oxidation over time, but never to this magnitude. Even the updated picture was striking, very interesting!

That's correct.  In one of the recent Ü articles he dryhops during fermentation and the resulting beer is lighter in color than the normal dryhopped one, and can't figure why.....Derp!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure anyone has truly figured out why, and while doings so wasn't necessarily my intent, I like to think continued experimentation will bring us closer to the truth. Perhaps it is oxidation, maybe it's the biotransformation effect (the actual variable of investigation), or possibly a combo of things, I really don't know. But I'm curious enough to refrain from settling and keep exploring

10
All Grain Brewing / Re: Introduction to Low Oxygen Brewing
« on: January 11, 2017, 12:19:06 AM »
If this has already been addressed elsewhere, I apologize. I'm curious if yeast choice makes a difference when brewing low O2? Especially, can a Kölsch be made using 029 fermented at 62F and turned around a little quicker than a cool fermented lager?

Seems to me the process is yeast and style independent, just want to make sure. Thanks!

If you are asking can a kolsch be made with kolsch yeast,sure.  If you are asking if you can use kolsch yeast to make a tradional lager say a helles... then sure. But it won't be a helles,  it would be a kolsch. The esters from the yeast make it not like tradional Bavarian lager strains.. along with that you won't get the sulfur and the yeast derived sulfites to help protect and achieve the proper flavor profiles.
Low oxygen brewing is an overarching technique, it's not yeast and style dependent.

Thanks, it's for a Kölsch.

11
All Grain Brewing / Re: Introduction to Low Oxygen Brewing
« on: January 10, 2017, 11:41:09 PM »
If this has already been addressed elsewhere, I apologize. I'm curious if yeast choice makes a difference when brewing low O2? Especially, can a Kölsch be made using 029 fermented at 62F and turned around a little quicker than a cool fermented lager?

Seems to me the process is yeast and style independent, just want to make sure. Thanks!

12
General Homebrew Discussion / What are your "unpopular" brewing opinions
« on: January 09, 2017, 05:29:43 AM »
My unpopular opinion is that too many people reach a comfort level in brewing, stop learning, and think polite praise is a sign of quality. A lot of homebrew sucks. (Not that I go around saying that).

And I don't like Amarillo and Mosaic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seriously! Just because I don't overtly say your beer is s*** and I'm polite doesn't mean you should start a brewery.

And I may just be moving your direction on Mosaic... been struggling with that hop lately.

My clearly unpopular opinion is that how well your grain is milled makes little difference. I shop at several different shops that and also have a mill of my own. There is an obvious difference in the crush depending which mill I use, but my preboil gravity is always close enough for homebrew. Never get a stuck sparge.

You might appreciate the xBmt that gets published tomorrow

New England, Hazy or Juicy IPA's are a fad that need to stay in 2016.  Happy Brew Year.

Agreed.  I expect them tp go the way of the Black IPA.

I don't care either way, but I'm not so sure the hazy IPA will be going away. Rather, what I can see happening is the whole regional naming schemes fading off-- IPA is IPA, some are different than others (including in appearance), but they're still technically IPA.

13
General Homebrew Discussion / What are your "unpopular" brewing opinions
« on: December 31, 2016, 11:24:02 PM »
I don't dig beers over 10% alcohol. I have a few favorites that happen to exceed that but as a general rule I prefer less than 9% with 10% as a max.

I just can't see a legitimate reason to have beers that are 12% and above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Came to say pretty much this. I just don't do big beers, I'd rather 5 pints of an easy drinking Pilsner or Pale Ale than 2 of a 9% something or other.

14
All Grain Brewing / Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« on: December 28, 2016, 03:44:56 PM »
Marshall has a vested interst in what he does...... however, it seems misplaced to think that the vested interest has anything to do with whether or not LODO is "a thing."

If anything, the vested interest of Brulosophy is to do a good job of objectively evaluating as many brewing practices as possible - ranging from old wives tales, to conventional wisdom, to new practices.  I think the NE IPA stuff is a good example of that.  I think his initial "bias" toward NE IPA's was that of many - they were a gimmick, sloppy, poorly done, etc.  However, he did a variety of trials that centered around them and kind of came back with the realization that "hey, you know what, these beers are actually pretty good" within the context of the issues he was exploring.

Honestly, if Brulosophy had some sort of agenda they would probably figure out a way for more of their experiments to actually show conclusive differences in their outcomes.  I love all of the experiments, tests, comparisons - but, let's be honest - at this point the default assumption is basically "no one could tell the difference."  If he was honestly biased in a way to promote himself and what he does - he would would be hedging toward more concrete results.

Like I said - the "bias" that is financially in the best interest of Brulosophy is ultimately: "Be open minded, listen to what is currently interesting to home brewers, and design experiments as best he can to compare practices to see what does, and does not make a difference."   He has nothing at all to gain by having an "agenda" of any sort.  In fact, that would be the one position that would be least beneficial to his financial interest.

** This from a guy who did my first two batches of LODO lagers yesterday and was surprised at some rather distinct differences in the wort I produced.  (whether that translates into anything in the finished beer is yet to be seen).

Just kegged 20 more gallons of that deliciously ugly stuff last night

Suppose Marshall puts LODO to the test. He only follows a few of the LODO techniques and finds no significant difference.

Response- hey dummy, you missed X Y and Z. Valid argument.

Response- oh ya? Well, you have advertising and sell t-shirts. Invalid argument that doesn't really make the thing look all that good.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Out of respect for the LoDO folks, both factions, I won't be performing the LoDO xBmt, at least to start. In fact, I'm working with a friend on it now, a dude who is not affiliated with Brülosophy and hence not as vested as greedy ol' me... he also happens to be respected by the LoDO community. And our aim is to do it as "by the book" as humanly possible.

If the beers end up being indistinguishable, I guarantee you won't see me delve into the realm of the immature by immediately saying it is myth. Similarly, if the results are significant, I won't jump to the immediate conclusion that it is the holy grail. We will continue to explore, designing "citizen science" experiments to test the claims, despite cries that we did it wrong or had some ulterior motive.

Good grief!

Marshall sells t-shirts. He's a vested interest LODO denier. Call the brewing justice warriors.

I am beginning to remember why I walked away from this forum.

I do sell t-shirts. As a psychologist, I've spent a lot of time not only studying bias, but analyzing my own. Indeed, it does influence me, though I'm not convinced it has any impact whatsoever on the way we approach data collection-- I seriously don't care what we find, it's all interesting to me, I'm not "vested" in any variables being right or wrong.

That simply isn't the case with the lowoxygenbrewing.com crew. We (humans) don't promote specific ideas without some motive, and while the motive for the LoDO folks may not be money, it's certainly something. Clout and recognition have been shown to be just as strong of motivators as money, perhaps that's the goal. And that's totally fine!

Suppose Marshall puts LODO to the test. He only follows a few of the LODO techniques and finds no significant difference.

Response- hey dummy, you missed X Y and Z. Valid argument.

Response- oh ya? Well, you have advertising and sell t-shirts. Invalid argument that doesn't really make the thing look all that good.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
I agree but Marshall was the one that mentioned a vested interest.  Granted Big Monk baited him. I was pointing out that Marshall could easily be accused of the same thing.  I like his experiments but if one accused him of bias because of it that's a fair point.

You're presuming by vested I was referring only to money... I wasn't at all.

Being accused of biased is like being accused of breathing air-- it's ubiquitous and inescapable. The issue becomes accusations regarding the source of said bias and using those accusations to bolster one's own view of themselves as less biased.

Brülosophy isn't promoting any specific method as right or wrong. All of us contributors have had our beliefs questioned by the results, it's weird to be sure, but that's what happens. We don't change the way we do things to achieve a specific result, also know as p-hacking, and Google searches do not suffice for us.

The LoDO folks, specifically those from lowoxygenbrewing.com, seem dedicated to a cause, that of promoting a specific method as being the "best" way. Rather than providing actual relevant evidence, they've deferred to 70+ year old papers (appeal to antiquity) and anecdotal experiences (try it for yourself). This is all cool, doesn't bother me one bit, I'm not even a LoDO denier. It's odd to me that my interest in seeing relevant data has led to sh!t throwing I haven't experienced since middle school. So it goes.

Lodo has all the characteristics of a paradigm shift (cf philosophy of science, Popper and Kuhn). Radical changes, lots of resistance, argumentation not always completely rational. Obviously, paradigm shifts are not always for the better (cf dinosaurs and biblical flood).

Yep.

The 5th edition of Kunze was released in 2014, not a piece of antiquity by a long shot. I was merely referring to the fact that even Jean DeClerck references the damaging effects of oxygen in his seminal "A textbook of brewing" which dates to the late 40s.

Browse the references we list and you'll find most of the important information is dated to the past 30 years. This is current information. It's also relevant. It's also not the stuff of antiquity.

I can only speak for myself: other than my first name and what beers I like, no one on this forum knows who I am. Not my face, where I live. I don't get backslaps and attaboys, I'm not an AHA member so I don't go to conferences, I'm not a part of a homebrew club and I don't enter competitions.

There is zero benefit for me to push this information. Absolutely none. Even if there was recognition it's not the kind that affects my life. It doesn't affect me as a dad, or a professional or a husband.

As much as I enjoy conversing with everyone here, their opinion about me is irrelevant to my real life and even my online presence.

The website could go away today, with all the information and the only people it would be hurting would be the forum members here we created it for.

I have nothing against you at all, Derek, and appreciate your passion and commitment!

People know my name and some even know my face, but I'm not sure I get many attaboys. I am a proud AHA member who loves conferences because this community is amazing. I've been brewing since January 2003, experimenting extensively for the last 5 years or so, and I only recently came to accept there are few absolutes when it comes to methods. I'm a club member and have competed many times. I'm also a Certified BJCP judge.

If all of this makes me more biased, it's lost on me.

You missed the point, which wasn't to say you are more biased because of those things just that I have no conduit by which to receive clout/recognition/praise from other Brewers, hence that can't be my motivation for being interested in Low Oxygen.

I apologize if I missed your point. Still, bias is largely subconscious, meaning we're often unaware of it when it's happening and defend ourselves against it.

It seems to me that if anyone doesn't taste and prefer what they're supposed to, they'll be accused of not performing LoDO properly.

I don't have much to add, since this is basically a s-show already.

I just want to point out that low oxygen brewing IS the best way to brew. It IS currently being taught, to all brewing professionals. ALL of the major equipment manufacturers are making low oxygen brew houses. It IS backed by nearly 100 years of REAL scientists in REAL trials and tests. IF you doubt me(which isn't even me in this case,its brewing professionals around the world), I urge you to get the literature, and attend the courses and tell them they are wrong, because there was an exbeeriment that said so.. I would love to see where that gets you.

Now, I saw NE ipa's brought up.. You do realize they are rocking low oxygen brewhouses and are fanatical about DO right? In hill farmsteads video you can CLEARLY see a copy of Kunze(The Holy brewing Bible) on dudes table, and they are rocking a German brewhouse. Also in the video you can see him venting pressure on his spunded beers in the fermenter.

Now, brewing low oxygen IS the best method to make beers, and its not debatable, well I mean you can debate, but you will be debating folks that you will lose to(obviously not me). Which has been my point the entirety. I will refer back to above when I say, it IS being taught, if you don't believe me get one of the brewing books, or take a class. I know this because I have done BOTH of those things.

However, the real argument should be, can I notice a difference in my brewing VS low oxygen brewing? Not the brewing method itself.

I can't fault you folks who have not tasted low oxygen wort, but if you have tasted a proper low oxygen wort, the difference is so dramatic that its not even close. Right now its like trying to describe a flower to a blind person. So until the time comes when folks can get a taste, there is no point even trying to elaborate on it.

Given the subjective nature of preference, I'd contend "the best way" isn't absolute.

And Brülosophy results would never claim anything is right or wrong, but rather whether a certain variable produced a reliably distinguishable difference.

15
All Grain Brewing / Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« on: December 28, 2016, 03:23:45 PM »
Marshall has a vested interst in what he does...... however, it seems misplaced to think that the vested interest has anything to do with whether or not LODO is "a thing."

If anything, the vested interest of Brulosophy is to do a good job of objectively evaluating as many brewing practices as possible - ranging from old wives tales, to conventional wisdom, to new practices.  I think the NE IPA stuff is a good example of that.  I think his initial "bias" toward NE IPA's was that of many - they were a gimmick, sloppy, poorly done, etc.  However, he did a variety of trials that centered around them and kind of came back with the realization that "hey, you know what, these beers are actually pretty good" within the context of the issues he was exploring.

Honestly, if Brulosophy had some sort of agenda they would probably figure out a way for more of their experiments to actually show conclusive differences in their outcomes.  I love all of the experiments, tests, comparisons - but, let's be honest - at this point the default assumption is basically "no one could tell the difference."  If he was honestly biased in a way to promote himself and what he does - he would would be hedging toward more concrete results.

Like I said - the "bias" that is financially in the best interest of Brulosophy is ultimately: "Be open minded, listen to what is currently interesting to home brewers, and design experiments as best he can to compare practices to see what does, and does not make a difference."   He has nothing at all to gain by having an "agenda" of any sort.  In fact, that would be the one position that would be least beneficial to his financial interest.

** This from a guy who did my first two batches of LODO lagers yesterday and was surprised at some rather distinct differences in the wort I produced.  (whether that translates into anything in the finished beer is yet to be seen).

Just kegged 20 more gallons of that deliciously ugly stuff last night

Suppose Marshall puts LODO to the test. He only follows a few of the LODO techniques and finds no significant difference.

Response- hey dummy, you missed X Y and Z. Valid argument.

Response- oh ya? Well, you have advertising and sell t-shirts. Invalid argument that doesn't really make the thing look all that good.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Out of respect for the LoDO folks, both factions, I won't be performing the LoDO xBmt, at least to start. In fact, I'm working with a friend on it now, a dude who is not affiliated with Brülosophy and hence not as vested as greedy ol' me... he also happens to be respected by the LoDO community. And our aim is to do it as "by the book" as humanly possible.

If the beers end up being indistinguishable, I guarantee you won't see me delve into the realm of the immature by immediately saying it is myth. Similarly, if the results are significant, I won't jump to the immediate conclusion that it is the holy grail. We will continue to explore, designing "citizen science" experiments to test the claims, despite cries that we did it wrong or had some ulterior motive.

Good grief!

Marshall sells t-shirts. He's a vested interest LODO denier. Call the brewing justice warriors.

I am beginning to remember why I walked away from this forum.

I do sell t-shirts. As a psychologist, I've spent a lot of time not only studying bias, but analyzing my own. Indeed, it does influence me, though I'm not convinced it has any impact whatsoever on the way we approach data collection-- I seriously don't care what we find, it's all interesting to me, I'm not "vested" in any variables being right or wrong.

That simply isn't the case with the lowoxygenbrewing.com crew. We (humans) don't promote specific ideas without some motive, and while the motive for the LoDO folks may not be money, it's certainly something. Clout and recognition have been shown to be just as strong of motivators as money, perhaps that's the goal. And that's totally fine!

Suppose Marshall puts LODO to the test. He only follows a few of the LODO techniques and finds no significant difference.

Response- hey dummy, you missed X Y and Z. Valid argument.

Response- oh ya? Well, you have advertising and sell t-shirts. Invalid argument that doesn't really make the thing look all that good.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
I agree but Marshall was the one that mentioned a vested interest.  Granted Big Monk baited him. I was pointing out that Marshall could easily be accused of the same thing.  I like his experiments but if one accused him of bias because of it that's a fair point.

You're presuming by vested I was referring only to money... I wasn't at all.

Being accused of biased is like being accused of breathing air-- it's ubiquitous and inescapable. The issue becomes accusations regarding the source of said bias and using those accusations to bolster one's own view of themselves as less biased.

Brülosophy isn't promoting any specific method as right or wrong. All of us contributors have had our beliefs questioned by the results, it's weird to be sure, but that's what happens. We don't change the way we do things to achieve a specific result, also know as p-hacking, and Google searches do not suffice for us.

The LoDO folks, specifically those from lowoxygenbrewing.com, seem dedicated to a cause, that of promoting a specific method as being the "best" way. Rather than providing actual relevant evidence, they've deferred to 70+ year old papers (appeal to antiquity) and anecdotal experiences (try it for yourself). This is all cool, doesn't bother me one bit, I'm not even a LoDO denier. It's odd to me that my interest in seeing relevant data has led to sh!t throwing I haven't experienced since middle school. So it goes.

Lodo has all the characteristics of a paradigm shift (cf philosophy of science, Popper and Kuhn). Radical changes, lots of resistance, argumentation not always completely rational. Obviously, paradigm shifts are not always for the better (cf dinosaurs and biblical flood).

Yep.

The 5th edition of Kunze was released in 2014, not a piece of antiquity by a long shot. I was merely referring to the fact that even Jean DeClerck references the damaging effects of oxygen in his seminal "A textbook of brewing" which dates to the late 40s.

Browse the references we list and you'll find most of the important information is dated to the past 30 years. This is current information. It's also relevant. It's also not the stuff of antiquity.

I can only speak for myself: other than my first name and what beers I like, no one on this forum knows who I am. Not my face, where I live. I don't get backslaps and attaboys, I'm not an AHA member so I don't go to conferences, I'm not a part of a homebrew club and I don't enter competitions.

There is zero benefit for me to push this information. Absolutely none. Even if there was recognition it's not the kind that affects my life. It doesn't affect me as a dad, or a professional or a husband.

As much as I enjoy conversing with everyone here, their opinion about me is irrelevant to my real life and even my online presence.

The website could go away today, with all the information and the only people it would be hurting would be the forum members here we created it for.

I have nothing against you at all, Derek, and appreciate your passion and commitment!

People know my name and some even know my face, but I'm not sure I get many attaboys. I am a proud AHA member who loves conferences because this community is amazing. I've been brewing since January 2003, experimenting extensively for the last 5 years or so, and I only recently came to accept there are few absolutes when it comes to methods. I'm a club member and have competed many times. I'm also a Certified BJCP judge.

If all of this makes me more biased, it's lost on me.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 34