Author Topic: "We Might Have Been Wrong About FWH"  (Read 2182 times)

Offline HoosierBrew

  • Global Moderator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 13030
  • Indianapolis,IN
    • View Profile
"We Might Have Been Wrong About FWH"
« on: August 17, 2017, 11:15:32 PM »
Found this article on Stan H's blog pretty interesting regarding FWH:

http://appellationbeer.com/blog/we-might-have-been-wrong-about-first-wort-hopping/
Jon H.

Offline The Beerery

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1509
  • More you know, the more you know you don't know!
    • View Profile
Re: "We Might Have Been Wrong About FWH"
« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2017, 11:34:24 PM »
Believe a grad student or umpteen years of German brewing science.  I think you know where I stand. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Herr, wirf Hirn vom Himmel!
(Oder Steine, Hauptsache er trifft.)
Check us out at www.lowoxygenbrewing.com (Now with forums)
"Consistently successful brewers are invariably the ones who operate low oxygen systems." -George Fix Circa 1999
Taplist and Fermentation Cellar
"Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change"

Online tommymorris

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1998
  • Tommy M.
    • View Profile
Re: "We Might Have Been Wrong About FWH"
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2017, 11:44:54 PM »
Believe a grad student or umpteen years of German brewing science.  I think you know where I stand. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
a graduate student and Dr. Thomas Shellhammer...

Not saying you have to agree.

Big Monk

  • Guest
Re: "We Might Have Been Wrong About FWH"
« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2017, 11:55:11 PM »
2 things:

1.) There were no negative effects in sensory analysis.

2.) There were positive chemical effects outside of the sensory analysis.

Conclusion: FWH aren't hurting in the slightest.

I wouldn't give up using FWH.

Offline lupulus

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Think like a proton, stay positive!
    • View Profile
Re: "We Might Have Been Wrong About FWH"
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2017, 12:06:08 AM »
Nothin wrong with the Shellhammer poster. The interpretation by Stan is incorrect. Stats test is not designed to prove with 95% confidence that beers are similar. 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”  Neil deGrasse Tyson

Offline lupulus

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Think like a proton, stay positive!
    • View Profile
Re: "We Might Have Been Wrong About FWH"
« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2017, 12:11:34 AM »
A reader of the poster mentioned that they were one observer away from being significantly different.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”  Neil deGrasse Tyson

Offline Andy Farke

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Homebrewing Paleontologist
    • View Profile
    • Andy's Brewing Blog
Re: "We Might Have Been Wrong About FWH"
« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2017, 12:36:23 AM »
Found this article on Stan H's blog pretty interesting regarding FWH:

http://appellationbeer.com/blog/we-might-have-been-wrong-about-first-wort-hopping/

I'm withholding judgement for now, until the work is peer reviewed and published. It certainly seems plausible, but not much to say until their is a formal paper or a broader distribution of the poster.

(As an aside related to a comment earlier in this thread, I did some of my best and most widely cited scientific work as a graduate student; students tend to have more time to explore a topic in depth and breadth, a luxury that's not always possible later in one's career.)

(and as another aside, is this poster or at least an abstract available anywhere?)

(and as a final aside, in some fields p=0.067 as referenced in one of the comments at the original post would be good enough for considering results worthy! p=0.05 is an arbitrary, if convenient, cut-off)
____________________________
Andy Farke, Homebrewer and Paleontologist
Website: http://www.andybrews.com
Twitter: @andyfarke
Facebook: Farke Brewing

Offline HoosierBrew

  • Global Moderator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 13030
  • Indianapolis,IN
    • View Profile
Re: "We Might Have Been Wrong About FWH"
« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2017, 12:49:34 AM »
Being clear, I found the article an interesting data point, not a basis to judge whether to FWH or not (or any other single study a basis to run and change anything). For the most part I've stopped FWH  because I didn't find much in the way of notable difference in bitterness quality. I do it on occasion though.
Jon H.

Offline narvin

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2258
  • Baltimore
    • View Profile
Re: "We Might Have Been Wrong About FWH"
« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2017, 01:18:09 AM »
I also wouldn't say that first wort hopping is "traditional".  It may have been rediscovered in the 90s but if you listen to Yvan De Baets, all of the great Belgian beers had already begun their decline by then.  8)
Please do not reply if your[sic] an evil alien!
Thanks

Offline lupulus

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Think like a proton, stay positive!
    • View Profile
Re: "We Might Have Been Wrong About FWH"
« Reply #9 on: August 18, 2017, 01:25:50 AM »
Found this article on Stan H's blog pretty interesting regarding FWH:

http://appellationbeer.com/blog/we-might-have-been-wrong-about-first-wort-hopping/

I'm withholding judgement for now, until the work is peer reviewed and published. It certainly seems plausible, but not much to say until their is a formal paper or a broader distribution of the poster.

(As an aside related to a comment earlier in this thread, I did some of my best and most widely cited scientific work as a graduate student; students tend to have more time to explore a topic in depth and breadth, a luxury that's not always possible later in one's career.)

(and as another aside, is this poster or at least an abstract available anywhere?)

(and as a final aside, in some fields p=0.067 as referenced in one of the comments at the original post would be good enough for considering results worthy! p=0.05 is an arbitrary, if convenient, cut-off)
Exactly. An almost positive result if sample size were higher is interpreted in the opposite direction by Stan.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”  Neil deGrasse Tyson

Offline dmtaylor

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3262
  • Two Rivers, WI
    • View Profile
Re: "We Might Have Been Wrong About FWH"
« Reply #10 on: August 18, 2017, 03:28:38 AM »
I like the result of this study because it is consistent with my beliefs.

Others don't like the result of this study because they don't want to believe it.

In summary, we'll all continue to believe what we want to believe, and discount what we want to discount.

In conclusion, this changes nothing.

Cheers.
Dave

The world will become a much more pleasant place to live when each and every one of us realizes that we are all idiots.

Offline el_capitan

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
    • View Profile
Re: "We Might Have Been Wrong About FWH"
« Reply #11 on: August 18, 2017, 04:00:53 AM »
To the OP:  Thanks for the interesting news.  I've done FWH a couple times, but I'm not totally sure that I'm doing it right.  I basically add my bittering addition while collecting my first runnings.  I haven't played around too much with adding a portion of the aroma additions.  So my question is - if you buy into FWH, what is the ideal or preferred method? 

Offline Wilbur

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: "We Might Have Been Wrong About FWH"
« Reply #12 on: August 18, 2017, 04:27:37 AM »
I like the result of this study because it is consistent with my beliefs.

Others don't like the result of this study because they don't want to believe it.

In summary, we'll all continue to believe what we want to believe, and discount what we want to discount.

In conclusion, this changes nothing.

Cheers.
Congratulations, you have won an internet, please collect your prize at your convenience.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 19467
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: "We Might Have Been Wrong About FWH"
« Reply #13 on: August 18, 2017, 04:01:24 PM »
Their results mirror my own from 15 years ago...it might make a difference, it might not.  I think it does, so I do it.  Decide for yourself.
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

Offline reverseapachemaster

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3144
    • View Profile
    • Brain Sparging on Brewing
Re: "We Might Have Been Wrong About FWH"
« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2017, 03:47:13 PM »
Same--I think it makes a difference so I do it.

I will be curious to see how peer review addresses the research.
Heck yeah I blog about homebrewing: Brain Sparging on Brewing