[MDixon]

But it will never truly be the same. In this instance it really didn't matter, but let's say you had a very slight difference, I, for one, would have questioned the results as potentially some difference in the mash. Sure the temps were the same, but was the water absolutely the same, the length of time absolutely the same, etc.

When the test is something not associated with the mash, the wort should be homogeneous for all tests.

[denny]

But it will never truly be the same. In this instance it really didn't matter, but let's say you had a very slight difference, I, for one, would have questioned the results as potentially some difference in the mash. Sure the temps were the same, but was the water absolutely the same, the length of time absolutely the same, etc.

When the test is something not associated with the mash, the wort should be homogeneous for all tests.

I gotta agree with Mike.  You've introduced another variable that somewhat reduces the validity of the experiment.

[Stevie]

Sure, but any time an experiment requires two boils, a slew of variables are introduced. Boil off, burner level, wind speed and direction, kettle cleanliness, kettle temp, did Marshall just eat lunch. While maybe not ideal, I don't think two mashes necessarily invalidate this completely. Remember, he is doing this at his home, not a lab.

[denny]

Sure, but any time an experiment requires two boils, a slew of variables are introduced. Boil off, burner level, wind speed and direction, kettle cleanliness, kettle temp, did Marshall just eat lunch. While maybe not ideal, I don't think two mashes necessarily invalidate this completely. Remember, he is doing this at his home, not a lab.

I didn't say invalidate...I said reduce the validity.  Sure, 2 boils are different, but why introduce another variable beyond that?  When you're dealing with a criteria as subjective as taste and aroma, you need to limit differences as much as possible.  I speak as a veteran of doing many poor experiments! 

[Stevie]

Poor choice of words on my part Denny. I get what you are saying, but I think it is small potatoes here.

[hopfenundmalz]

...but I have a year old or so bag of CTZ that smells like cheese now.

I have a 14 month old bag of CTZ that smells amazing!

I'm guessing you have it stored better than a rubber band and freezer bag? At this point I'll use it for bittering still but wouldn't late/dry with it.

Freezer bags are ok for a month or 2, but those are not O2 barrier bags.

[denny]

Poor choice of words on my part Denny. I get what you are saying, but I think it is small potatoes here.

I agree that it likely is, but I've screwed up enough experiments that I like to make sure to limit the variables and focus on the hypothesis.

[charles1968]

The main reason to keep hops in airtight packaging is to slow down oxidation of alpha acids. Calculators like http://brewerslog.appspot.com/HopAlphaCalc estimate those Willamette hops would have only 0.5% AA after 11 years, though that's compensated to some extent by degradation of beta acids producing other bittering compounds.

It's amazing those hops kept so much aroma after 11 years. Also great news for anyone worried about buying hops from previous years. Presumably what little O2 was inside the package was consumed and the remaining hop oils were preserved. It might be different if the packet had been opened and resealed.

[Stevie]

I break my hop orders down into smaller packs to prevent resealing. I've settled on 4oz as the sweet spot. I'd like to do 2oz for some hops, but bag prices add up.

[HoosierBrew]

I break my hop orders down into smaller packs to prevent resealing. I've settled on 4oz as the sweet spot. I'd like to do 2oz for some hops, but bag prices add up.

I do something similar - 2 oz bags for most bittering hops, 4 oz bags for most late hops. Like you say, ideally smaller quantities the better, but the bags get pricey.

[klickitat jim]

Not trying to be nasty, but seriously?

There is no doubt that there would be differences. But would there be differences that matter? I vote no.

For my money, Marshall is doing good for the hobby. I had a couple bones get stuck in my wind pipe when I first started reading his blogs, but I credit him and others like Denny and Mark, in opening my mind back up.

When a homebrew experiment, which casts doubt on an edict from the brewing priesthood, gets poopood for some pedantic minutiae... I guess it just shows that Marshall is doing his job.

I wonder if its even possible to come to an agreement that this is about homebrew, and not what hypothetically might be fractionally different if subjected to a gas chronometer/mass spectrometer test? In my book, all that matters is final product as experienced in a fallible human mouth.  I wonder how many homebrewers ensure that when they rebrew a beer that every element is EXACTLY the same as the last batch? Not me.

[denny]

Not trying to be nasty, but seriously?

There is no doubt that there would be differences. But would there be differences that matter? I vote no.

For my money, Marshall is doing good for the hobby. I had a couple bones get stuck in my wind pipe when I first started reading his blogs, but I credit him and others like Denny and Mark, in opening my mind back up.

When a homebrew experiment, which casts doubt on an edict from the brewing priesthood, gets poopood for some pedantic minutiae... I guess it just shows that Marshall is doing his job.

I wonder if its even possible to come to an agreement that this is about homebrew, and not what hypothetically might be fractionally different if subjected to a gas chronometer/mass spectrometer test? In my book, all that matters is final product as experienced in a fallible human mouth.  I wonder how many homebrewers ensure that when they rebrew a beer that every element is EXACTLY the same as the last batch? Not me.

Jim, as I said I agree that the differences could be minor to none.  They may very well have no effect.  But none of us really know that.  But in order for it be be a trusted experiment, you have to eliminate any variable other than the one you're studying.  As I said, I've screwed up enough to learn that.  As to how homebrewers rebrew, I always make sure to duplicate as closely as possible.  If I know I'm not going to be able to do that, I consider it a different beer.

[MDixon]

Jim - Your last paragraph details exactly why the wort should be homogeneous for boil related experiments.

[69franx]

I break my hop orders down into smaller packs to prevent resealing. I've settled on 4oz as the sweet spot. I'd like to do 2oz for some hops, but bag prices add up.

Same here Steve. I need to start breaking down the bittering varieties more as well. Thats a great added idea

[klickitat jim]

Jim - Your last paragraph details exactly why the wort should be homogeneous for boil related experiments.

I see what you guys are saying. I will agree that there were differences between wort 1 and wort 2. I wonder though, what if he split one wort and did two boils? What I'm saying is 1. he still doesnt escape scrutiny that the two different boils would still be microscopically different. 2. How a beer is made can not be controlled enough to make up for the infallibility of the person who will be drinking it.

Not trying to be nasty, but seriously?

There is no doubt that there would be differences. But would there be differences that matter? I vote no.

For my money, Marshall is doing good for the hobby. I had a couple bones get stuck in my wind pipe when I first started reading his blogs, but I credit him and others like Denny and Mark, in opening my mind back up.

When a homebrew experiment, which casts doubt on an edict from the brewing priesthood, gets poopood for some pedantic minutiae... I guess it just shows that Marshall is doing his job.

I wonder if its even possible to come to an agreement that this is about homebrew, and not what hypothetically might be fractionally different if subjected to a gas chronometer/mass spectrometer test? In my book, all that matters is final product as experienced in a fallible human mouth.  I wonder how many homebrewers ensure that when they rebrew a beer that every element is EXACTLY the same as the last batch? Not me.

Jim, as I said I agree that the differences could be minor to none.  They may very well have no effect.  But none of us really know that.  But in order for it be be a trusted experiment, you have to eliminate any variable other than the one you're studying.  As I said, I've screwed up enough to learn that.