Membership questions? Log in issues? Email info@brewersassociation.org

Author Topic: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science  (Read 17124 times)

Offline brulosopher

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 505
  • They who drink beer will think beer
    • Brülosophy
Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #90 on: December 28, 2016, 08:44:56 am »
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.

Offline Kutaka

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #91 on: December 28, 2016, 08:46:55 am »
I checked out the low oxygen brewing site.  It turns out, I have been doing about 75% of the steps already.  Not sure if I will try the rest because I am happy with my semi low DO results.  Anyway, thanks for providing the information!     

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 27313
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #92 on: December 28, 2016, 09:04:19 am »
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.

There you go again, telling people what's best for them.  If you simply said "it's a great way to brew" or "the best I've found for me", you'd get no pushback from me.  But to tell me it's best for me shows you nothing  about the reasons I brew and comes across as arrogant.
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

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

The Beerery

  • Guest
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #93 on: December 28, 2016, 09:10:44 am »
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.



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.

There you go again, telling people what's best for them.  If you simply said "it's a great way to brew" or "the best I've found for me", you'd get no pushback from me.  But to tell me it's best for me shows you nothing  about the reasons I brew and comes across as arrogant.


Sigh....No, I did not even remotely close tell YOU how to brew. You can brew whichever way your little heart desires. That still does not change the fact that the current best practices being taught are low oxygen methods. I specifically stated that in the paragraph, you must have missed it. I will highlight it again.

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

Big Monk

  • Guest
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #94 on: December 28, 2016, 09:20:13 am »

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.


Unfortunately there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. Granted there are more right ways than wrong ways (i.e. phased implementation yields incremental results) but the criteria is pretty simple:

Keep hot side DO below 1 ppm ( < 0.5 is ideal and achievable) and keep cold side below 0.15 ppm (also definitely achievable with proper keg purging and spunding) with the additional caveat that you eliminate copper. Bottlers may have a rough time (I am personally a bottler) on the cold side unless they bottle with extract but there is more work to do on that front.

So it's a matter of meeting those criteria. If you do and you don't taste the difference? Can't really argue with that. Many pieces of anecdotal evidence exist for people seeing a positive difference in flavor. I have personally tasted it. Bryan is definitely familiar with it at all stages. If you don't meet those criteria and don't taste a difference? If you are trying to run the methods to a T for experimentation purposes, then you did it wrong. If you are implementing a phased approach (i.e. a few steps at a time) then you can work up to those criteria.

It stands to reason that at the very least, if you are executing the methods correctly on the hot side (< 1 ppm DO), you WILL notice the flavors in the wort. Keeping them may be a work in progress for some people.

Offline BrewBama

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 6168
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #95 on: December 28, 2016, 09:24:34 am »
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.



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.

There you go again, telling people what's best for them.  If you simply said "it's a great way to brew" or "the best I've found for me", you'd get no pushback from me.  But to tell me it's best for me shows you nothing  about the reasons I brew and comes across as arrogant.


Sigh....No, I did not even remotely close tell YOU how to brew. You can brew whichever way your little heart desires. That still does not change the fact that the current best practices being taught are low oxygen methods. I specifically stated that in the paragraph, you must have missed it. I will highlight it again.

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

I agree that if you simply said "it's a great way to brew" or "the best I've found for me", you'd get no pushback from me either. Statements like this is the 'ram it down your throat' BS that riles me and possibly others on this site: "Now, brewing low oxygen IS the best method to make beers, and its not debatable..." 

Offline Joe Sr.

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 4467
  • Chicago - NORTH SIDE
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #96 on: December 28, 2016, 09:29:51 am »
Unsubscribing.  This has derailed badly.
It's all in the reflexes. - Jack Burton

The Beerery

  • Guest
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #97 on: December 28, 2016, 09:41:58 am »
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.



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.

There you go again, telling people what's best for them.  If you simply said "it's a great way to brew" or "the best I've found for me", you'd get no pushback from me.  But to tell me it's best for me shows you nothing  about the reasons I brew and comes across as arrogant.


Sigh....No, I did not even remotely close tell YOU how to brew. You can brew whichever way your little heart desires. That still does not change the fact that the current best practices being taught are low oxygen methods. I specifically stated that in the paragraph, you must have missed it. I will highlight it again.

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

I agree that if you simply said "it's a great way to brew" or "the best I've found for me", you'd get no pushback from me either. Statements like this is the 'ram it down your throat' BS that riles me and possibly others on this site: "Now, brewing low oxygen IS the best method to make beers, and its not debatable..."

The sooner you guys get done thinking this is ME, the better. Yes, I am in front of you saying this at this current point in time, I will give you that. However this is not ME or MY ideals. You guys are going to have to accept that.
I want you to know I, just like all homebrewers are "hacks" in the true process. You brew how you want to, I brew how I want to, but for the millionth time. Just because we brew the way we do does not stop the science or the schooling pertaining to the "proper" way to brew. Yes there is a right way and a wrong way, there is, thats the way it works. I am no angel in this either, I do stuff wrong all the time.. I go back again to what I said...
Challenge if you see the results in how you brew, vs lowering DO in your beer, not the method(low oxygen brewing, which may be associated with ME, but its just a term used). The method is being taught by masters in brewing science, there is a reason they teach what they teach.
Again..I am not telling anyone how to make the beer they do, but that does not change science behind how to make beer..
« Last Edit: December 28, 2016, 09:43:30 am by The Beerery »

Offline Kutaka

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #98 on: December 28, 2016, 09:47:40 am »
I recall reading a study several years ago that said a panel of tasters actually preferred the taste of oxidized beer.  You can't argue with science!  ;)

The Beerery

  • Guest
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #99 on: December 28, 2016, 09:50:10 am »
I recall reading a study several years ago that said a panel of tasters actually preferred the taste of oxidized beer.  You can't argue with science!  ;)

This is true, but maybe a little out of context on how you are using it. 

It was when Bamforth was working for a brewery fixing oxidation issues on a known brand of beer. The brand of beer was known for its flavors and then suddenly the flavors changed, and tasters preferred how the beer used to taste.  ;)

Offline bboy9000

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • KCMO
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #100 on: December 28, 2016, 09:50:49 am »
You're presuming by vested I was referring only to money... I wasn't at all.

No, I got that.

Quote
Being accused of biased is like being accused of breathing air-- it's ubiquitous and inescapable.

Which is why is said, "No one from GBF, Brulosophy, me or anyone is free from bias.  That is the limitation of experiments with people."

Quote
Rather than providing actual relevant evidence, they've deferred to 70+ year old papers (appeal to antiquity)

I'm aware of that logical fallacy. If you call research published in peer-reviewed journals in the 1990's and 2000's an appeal to antiquity or authority then I don't understand logic (which I admit is a possibility).

I'm a skeptical person and questioned the LODO guys often.  One of my main concerns was the lack of available research.  After some Googling it's apparent this is a legit concern- it's just harder to find the information because we aren't members of the BA, MBAA or brewing science students.  The only question left for me is whether it is worth the effort as a homebrewer who rarely has a keg last longer than 2-3 weeks.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2016, 10:04:09 am by bboy9000 »
Brian
mobrewer

Offline HoosierBrew

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 13031
  • Indianapolis,IN
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #101 on: December 28, 2016, 10:02:30 am »
The only question left for me is whether it is worth the effort as a homebrewer who rarely has a keg last longer than 2-3 weeks.


Having done it, I'd say that it's not just about shelf life. It's about the beer tasting noticeably better from the get go IMHO.

Disclaimer to all - I have no list of brewing studies to cite as evidence other than what has been posted already or is there on the low oxygen site. I'm quoting my taste buds for now. Triangles are coming since I'm currently brewing the double batch of Dunkel today to use for sensory analysis (got delayed in doing it until today). 
Jon H.

Offline JJeffers09

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1127
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #102 on: December 28, 2016, 10:07:40 am »
This seems to have derailed a little.  With topics that I believe started this thread was the mashing methods

Step mashing vs single infusion
Low Dissolved Oxygen vs (dare I say) traditional

These affects of NaMeta and I have a question about the difference this method has with LOX, PPO, and HSO without using pils  malt. If that's not clear - if the biggest difference lies in a grist with the highest level of pilsner malts vs base malt +1.9 srm which is apparently the point in which PPO greatly deminishes.

As well as does K-Meta vs NaMeta have the same effect

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: December 28, 2016, 10:09:14 am by JJeffers09 »
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - Benjamin Franklin

AHA Member
Indiana Brewers Union (IBU)

Big Monk

  • Guest
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #103 on: December 28, 2016, 10:09:52 am »
This seems to have derailed a little.  With topics that I believe started this thread was the mashing methods

Step mashing vs single infusion
Low Dissolved Oxygen vs (dare I say) traditional

These affects of NaMeta and I have a question about the difference this method has with LOX, PPO, and HSO without using pils  malt. If that's not clear - if the biggest difference lies in a grist with the highest level of pilsner malts vs base malt +1.9 srm which is apparently the point in which PPO greatly deminishes.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

No offense to you but that whole statement is clear as mud. Maybe you typed it too quick? I'm not 100% sure what you are getting at.

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 27313
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #104 on: December 28, 2016, 10:18:28 am »
This started as an interesting philosophical discussion.  It's gotten too far from that.  Thread closed.
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

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell