Author Topic: Fauxpils results and discussion  (Read 17457 times)

Offline redzim

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2012, 01:29:27 PM »
i can't wait to go through in more detail
thanks for letting me participate and evaluing my beers as well

don

yes. it was fun to participate and I am learning a lot by going thru the notes of the other tasters and trying the remember the 3 beers I had.  thanks for pulling it all together.

-red

Offline nateo

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2210
  • Denver, CO
    • View Profile
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #16 on: August 02, 2012, 01:31:02 PM »
BTW, Nate is it OK if we identify ourselves in the results so people can laugh at us (me)?

I left the names off to protect the guilty. I didn't want to embarrass anyone for misidentifying a duplicate, or let people's opinions about the evaluators impact their analysis of the feedback. So at this point I'd ask to keep it confidential and let the feedback speak for itself.

Not that I'd accuse anyone of listening to you, Denny, but I wanted to avoid anyone believing one side just because of who they are.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2012, 01:34:48 PM by nateo »
In der Kürze liegt die Würze.

Offline hopfenundmalz

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 6043
  • Milford, MI
    • View Profile
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #17 on: August 02, 2012, 02:13:24 PM »
I could tell who one of the Judges was from the BJCP ranking.  ;)
Jeff Rankert
Ann Arbor Brewers Guild, AHA Member, BJCP Certified
Home-brewing, not just a hobby, it is a lifestyle!

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 13673
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #18 on: August 02, 2012, 02:14:39 PM »
BTW, Nate is it OK if we identify ourselves in the results so people can laugh at us (me)?

I left the names off to protect the guilty. I didn't want to embarrass anyone for misidentifying a duplicate, or let people's opinions about the evaluators impact their analysis of the feedback. So at this point I'd ask to keep it confidential and let the feedback speak for itself.

Not that I'd accuse anyone of listening to you, Denny, but I wanted to avoid anyone believing one side just because of who they are.

;)

wise man
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

Offline jeffy

  • I spend way too much time on the AHA forum
  • ********
  • Posts: 2827
  • Tampa, Fl
    • View Profile
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #19 on: August 02, 2012, 02:14:53 PM »
I could tell who one of the Judges was from the BJCP ranking.  ;)

Me too, but I haven't had a chance to see how wrong I was yet.
Jeff Gladish, Tampa (989.3, 175.1 Apparent Rennarian)
Homebrewing since 1990
AHA member since 1991, now a lifetime member
BJCP judge since 1995

Offline garc_mall

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 852
  • [1892.9, 294.9deg] AR Lynnwood, WA
    • View Profile
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2012, 02:24:16 PM »
I was just glad to see that most of my taste observations agreed with all the other testers. It makes me more confident in my tasting skills, which means that I really need to work more on the knowledge side of the BJCP, so I can prepare to take my test.
In a Keg: Flanders Red Ale, Rye Altbier, Cascade/Topaz Pale
Fermenting: Flanders Red, Saison

Offline nateo

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2210
  • Denver, CO
    • View Profile
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2012, 04:19:26 PM »
FWIW I slightly preferred 3X. My wife strongly preferred 3X. I thought 3X was rounder and crisper, while 5% was maltier and brighter. Clarity was good in both, but better in 3X. I think shipping wasn't great for the beers, so clarity in the responses was all over the map, from brilliant to hazy.   
In der Kürze liegt die Würze.

Offline malzig

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
    • View Profile
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2012, 04:24:54 AM »
Big picture:
2) Decoction mashing extracts more gravity from malt, and it probably extracts more compounds that can be perceived as "dry" as well. Whether that's good or bad for a given recipe will depend on personal preference and your targeted beer profile.
3) Using melanoidin malt doesn't emulate decoction mashing
Excuse me if I have the experiment wrong, I can't open all the files.  Also, don't mistake this for criticism of your experiment, as finding possible alternate interpretations of results is all part of the scientific process, as you know.  Also, excuse me if this is all obvious.  :)

If the comparison was between a decocted beer and a no-sparge beer with Melanoidin, it seems like there is one too many variables at once to make conclusion #2.  I'm glad to see the Melanoidin test, though. 

But to say that Decoction makes a beer taste dry would have required a comparison to an identical recipe that wasn't decocted.  The primary conclusion seems to be the that Melanoidin Malt makes a beer taste maltier than a decoction.  In that case, it's possible that the Decoction might have no effect and the Decocted beer might taste relatively drier simply because it is less malty.  Then, preference might come down to whether someone prefers a maltier beer, or not.

Offline nateo

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2210
  • Denver, CO
    • View Profile
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2012, 05:31:33 AM »
it's possible that the Decoction might have no effect and the Decocted beer might taste relatively drier simply because it is less malty.  Then, preference might come down to whether someone prefers a maltier beer, or not.

That's possible, and I certainly can't disprove it, but I think there's something else going on there too. The "Big picture" section was my attempt to draw conclusions based on my study, in the context of everything else I know about brewing. The reason I said decoction probably extracts more "dry" compounds, with the qualifier "probably" is that OG and FG were the same, and IBUs were theoretically ~10% lower in 3X because of the increased batch size and decreased utilization.  All other things being equal, I would've expected a 10% decrease in IBU to be a bigger deal than 5% melanoidin malt when OG and FG are the same.
In der Kürze liegt die Würze.

Offline weithman5

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1681
  • naperville, il
    • View Profile
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2012, 06:27:05 AM »
BTW, Nate is it OK if we identify ourselves in the results so people can laugh at us (me)?

I left the names off to protect the guilty. I didn't want to embarrass anyone for misidentifying a duplicate, or let people's opinions about the evaluators impact their analysis of the feedback. So at this point I'd ask to keep it confidential and let the feedback speak for itself.

Not that I'd accuse anyone of listening to you, Denny, but I wanted to avoid anyone believing one side just because of who they are.

thanks for protecting me 8)
Don AHA member

Offline nateo

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2210
  • Denver, CO
    • View Profile
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #25 on: August 03, 2012, 08:30:26 AM »
Keep the criticism coming guys. I can't stand baseless conjecture, but there has to be some conjecture to draw any conclusions. I made the data available because I wanted the conjecture process to be as transparent as possible.

I tried to split up my conjecture based on my perceived level of evidence. The only thing this study shows beyond a reasonable doubt is that the fermentability was the same and the decocted beer had higher efficiency.

To me, there is clear and convincing evidence the beers were in fact different, though just looking at the BJCP scores, stated preferences, and percentage of misidentified duplicates, you could easily argue the beers were the same. While supported by the evidence, I don't think that conclusion is correct.

Other than that, there's no other conclusion I stated I'm committed to, and will gladly change my mind based upon reasonable analysis.
In der Kürze liegt die Würze.

Offline jeffy

  • I spend way too much time on the AHA forum
  • ********
  • Posts: 2827
  • Tampa, Fl
    • View Profile
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #26 on: August 03, 2012, 10:31:49 AM »
I doubt you can conclude much from my feedback other than two of them were the same.  The third beer in my group, 5%, had some off-flavors unrelated to the experiment.
Jeff Gladish, Tampa (989.3, 175.1 Apparent Rennarian)
Homebrewing since 1990
AHA member since 1991, now a lifetime member
BJCP judge since 1995

Offline nateo

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2210
  • Denver, CO
    • View Profile
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #27 on: August 03, 2012, 12:25:36 PM »
I doubt you can conclude much from my feedback other than two of them were the same.  The third beer in my group, 5%, had some off-flavors unrelated to the experiment.

I'll update my OP to reflect your feedback. I think your descriptors were fairly consistent with what other evaluators picked up on, so I don't think all of your feedback was useless. I've omitted your preference and impression of relative maltiness/dryness in my summary.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2012, 12:49:31 PM by nateo »
In der Kürze liegt die Würze.

Offline nateo

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2210
  • Denver, CO
    • View Profile
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #28 on: August 03, 2012, 12:57:34 PM »
Does anyone else think it's weird OG and FG were the same when 3X spent so much time at 158* and 5% was just a single rest at 149* with a mashout?
In der Kürze liegt die Würze.

Offline morticaixavier

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 7403
  • Underhill VT
    • View Profile
    • The Best Artist in the WORLD!!!!!
Re: Fauxpils results and discussion
« Reply #29 on: August 03, 2012, 01:26:19 PM »
Does anyone else think it's weird OG and FG were the same when 3X spent so much time at 158* and 5% was just a single rest at 149* with a mashout?

that is interesting. does this imply that mash temp does not have as much effect on FG as common wisdom says? or is there something about the decoction process that makes a MORE fermentable wort contrary to the idea that decoction produces a wort higher in melanoidens(sp?)
"Creativity is the residue of wasted time"
-A Einstein

"errors are [...] the portals of discovery"
- J Joyce