Reducing trub into fermenter

shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
The Homebrew Forum

Help Support The Homebrew Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Dexter101 said:
I think the flip side to this is:

Science is right, until it is proven wrong

Something being scientifically correct is not the same as it being noticable in practice.

I couldn't tell you the best beer i have ever drunk, but i can tell you the beers i drink regularly.

The quest for perfection is admirable. Producing good beer quickly and efficiently as part of a busy life is more realistic for some.

Everyone has their own goals
Click to expand...

Absolutely. A friend of mine worked in the brewing industry and, in blind tasting, people just didn't have a clue what they were drinking. One example she gave was Sol lager, which at the time was a hugely trendy drink. It was regularly spat out in blind taste tests by people who had stated it was their favourite. That's why I don't think the Brulosophy guys are being deliberately controversial, I think their results just reflect the limited palette most of us have and the power of bias. Life is not a double blind taste test, we all think our children are great and other peoples' are irritating. My sister has a ridiculous attachment to a fat cocker spaniel that I find unfathomable.

I also think that comparing processes used by home brewers to those used by commercial brewers is dubious. Things that make a massive difference on the small scale don't on the commercial, and vice versa. It's a hobby.

I love my saison yeast because it gets more barnyardy every time I recycle it. Except I did a test between two batches with my farmer friend and the latest brew, which I was convinced was full on silage, was distinctively more civilised than the last.
 
Sadfield said:
Like most creative endeavours, it's both, with science leading to refinement in techniques, be it painting, pottery, architecture, etc.

If you view it as art, why defend brulosophy and their experiments? Or is bad science somehow more acceptable?
Click to expand...

It's not science, it's a bit of fun.
 
Sadfield said:
So you don't mash or ferment at particular temperature ranges? Or boil to sterilise wort?
Click to expand...
I also eat, breath and have sex but i don't describe my life as science...

I have had the same discussion about food.

The processes are scientific, but i don't do them because i love science. I do them because I love creating and sharing new dishes and experiences.

Other people do it because they love to kn9w about the science.

Different people enjoy different aspects of the same thing.
 
Sadfield said:
So you don't mash or ferment at particular temperature ranges? Or boil to sterilise wort?
Click to expand...

I did say in my first post that I respect and take the science into account. We all know the Clash were one of the best bands to grace the planet and the story goes that Joe Strummer once drew an imaginary line and said 'entertainers this side' (him and Paul Simenon), 'musicians that side' (Mick Jones and Topper Headon). Its the fusion of the two that matters. Take the soul out of music and you have massively competent and completely dull session musicians. Take out those with technical skill, you end up with a racket. What I get from Brulosophy, other than a bit of entertainment and fun, is that I can probably balls up one bit of my brewing day and it will still be pretty much OK. If I ballsed it all up, I'm sure it wouldn't.

Of course I boil to sterilise wort, but I don't think that at 60 minutes all the bacteria suddenly die en masse. I mash at a temperature that scientifically is shown to convert malt. Do I think a degree here or there makes a difference? No. By an odd coincidence, I have two friend who are 'super sensory'. One works in baking powder (!) and the other in botanical extracts. They may notice the difference between wort mashed at temperatures a couple of degrees apart but I'd bet most of us couldn't.
 
Grealish said:
I did say in my first post that I respect and take the science into account. We all know the Clash were one of the best bands to grace the planet and the story goes that Joe Strummer once drew an imaginary line and said 'entertainers this side' (him and Paul Simenon), 'musicians that side' (Mick Jones and Topper Headon). Its the fusion of the two that matters. Take the soul out of music and you have massively competent and completely dull session musicians. Take out those with technical skill, you end up with a racket. What I get from Brulosophy, other than a bit of entertainment and fun, is that I can probably balls up one bit of my brewing day and it will still be pretty much OK. If I ballsed it all up, I'm sure it wouldn't.

Of course I boil to sterilise wort, but I don't think that at 60 minutes all the bacteria suddenly die en masse. I mash at a temperature that scientifically is shown to convert malt. Do I think a degree here or there makes a difference? No. By an odd coincidence, I have two friend who are 'super sensory'. One works in baking powder (!) and the other in botanical extracts. They may notice the difference between wort mashed at temperatures a couple of degrees apart but I'd bet most of us couldn't.
Click to expand...

Also, to be clear, I was saying Brulosophy was 'a bit of fun, not science', not brewing... which is fun with a bit of science we have to take into account.
 
Dexter101 said:
Bet he is always 'raising' a smile with that job...
Click to expand...

I just had no idea how many kinds of baking powder are used in commercial baking. This very nice woman has a huge amount of technical and academic knowledge and senses of taste/smell that are the equivalent of Usain Bolt to the 100 metres but also the humility to understand that most of us just want to eat something pleasant. And, in all honesty and humility, she really liked one of my very first brew... made with extract.
 
Sadfield said:
Like most creative endeavours, it's both, with science leading to refinement in techniques, be it painting, pottery, architecture, etc.
Click to expand...

Grealish said:
Its the fusion of the two that matters. Take the soul out of music and you have massively competent and completely dull session musicians.
Click to expand...

Exactly the point I made earlier, brewing is art and science. It's also fun.

Take science out of brewing and one has less control over the artistic outcome.
 
Sadfield said:
Exactly the point I made earlier, brewing is art and science. It's also fun.

Take science out of brewing and one has less control over the artistic outcome.
Click to expand...

I've never taken the science out of it, I just don't think it's as important as we think it is. Like I say, try to mash at 200 degrees, it won't work. It will at 64 or 66 and maybe my super sensory friends can tell the difference, but I bet you or I can't. Relax, enjoy it and if professional perfection and consistency is your aim, buy a Rochefort or Budweiser according to your preference. You'll never match the big boys for science, they'll never match us for enthusiasm, eclecticism, exuberance and other great things beginning with e. As the great six fingered blues guitarist Hound Dog Taylor said, 'when I die they'll say 'he couldn't play sh*t but he sure made it sound good.' '
 
Last edited:
And just to be clear, I'm pretty confident those wonderful Rochefort monks got the science right by that luck we call artistry.
 
Why you neggin on science, brah? It frettun your beleefs or summin?
 
I think it's just human nature to try to get the best out of your endeavors, we wouldn't be where we are without that drive. I was surprised to read about the Fall and Rise of the British brew pubs, I was under the impression that 300 years ago the beer would have been pretty awful but there were 47,550 publican brewers and 780 common brewers. So with all that competition the beer couldn't have been all that bad. Could it:confused:
 
foxy said:
I think it's just human nature to try to get the best out of your endeavors, we wouldn't be where we are without that drive. I was surprised to read about the Fall and Rise of the British brew pubs, I was under the impression that 300 years ago the beer would have been pretty awful but there were 47,550 publican brewers and 780 common brewers. So with all that competition the beer couldn't have been all that bad. Could it:confused:
Click to expand...

Every brew, I try to get the best out of my endeavours. What I think is important to achieve that aim is obviously different to you. As for beer 300 years ago, who knows? It will have been very different and some of it may have been great. Doubtless some was god awful, but then so is 90% of the soulless rubbish the big boys throw out now. I'd rather try some bizarre infected craft brew from 300 years ago (presuming it is cholera free) than Bud or Greene King.
 
I've had beer served next to some of the big boys, so will continue to aim to replicate professional perfection, thanks.
Grealish said:
And just to be clear, I'm pretty confident those wonderful Rochefort monks got the science right by that luck we call artistry.
Click to expand...

From Rocheforts own website:

"The rebuilt brewing hall was first taken back into use in 1899. Brother Zozime from Dongen (in the Netherlands) was the first of the new line of brewmasters. In later years, Father Dominique was to take brewing lessons at Leuven University, so that the notoriously volatile brewing quality could be brought under control."

You were saying?
 
foxy said:
I think it's just human nature to try to get the best out of your endeavors, we wouldn't be where we are without that drive. I was surprised to read about the Fall and Rise of the British brew pubs, I was under the impression that 300 years ago the beer would have been pretty awful but there were 47,550 publican brewers and 780 common brewers. So with all that competition the beer couldn't have been all that bad. Could it:confused:
Click to expand...

I think the error you make is conflating commercial brewing practices with getting the best out of your endeavours. Unless your equipment is the same, and your goals are the same, then there are many aspects of their practice that just isn't important or applicable. I do not doubt that carrying trub into the fermenter will increase fatty acids in the finished beer. The science is there. What I question is the impact that this actually has on the taste of the finished beer.

Keep in mind is that taste is entirely subjective. If you think that eradicating trub from your fermenter has made a perceptible difference and increased your enjoyment of your beer, then more power to your elbow. But until those fatty acids have a noticeably detrimental effect on my beer, I will not return to being anally retentive about separating trub. For the record, my beer is as clear now as it has ever been.

As for Brulosophy, I have no problem with anybody who wishes to challenge dogmatism. I think the people who seem to have a problem with it are the sort of people who take the line that there is a prescriptive way to brew. My answer to that would be that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and many will lead to the same result.
 
Sadfield said:
I've had beer served next to some of the big boys, so will continue to aim to replicate professional perfection, thanks.


From Rocheforts own website:

"The rebuilt brewing hall was first taken back into use in 1899. Brother Zozime from Dongen (in the Netherlands) was the first of the new line of brewmasters. In later years, Father Dominique was to take brewing lessons at Leuven University, so that the notoriously volatile brewing quality could be brought under control."

You were saying?
Click to expand...

First point, boasting is never gracious and doesn't impress anyone. Second point, I've no problem with Father Dominique ironing out a few inconsistencies with a bit of technical know how. I doubt very much that the backbone of the Trappist brewing was built on scientific zealotry. I'm bowing out now because when people start boasting and using phrases like 'you were saying', it's a sure sign that nice people are turning into keyboard warriors. I have no axe to grind, I enjoy brewing and I'm only tangentially interested in the more scientific aspects. I'm really pleased that you have achieved something important to you by being 'next to some of the big boys.' Personally, I don't view that as of any value or importance as I'm not impressed by 'the big boys'. I have brewed loads of beers have learned about beers I never knew existed and enjoyed and yarned over my efforts at making them with friends and that is something I do attach value and importance to.
 
Sadfield said:
I've had beer served next to some of the big boys, so will continue to aim to replicate professional perfection, thanks.
Click to expand...

I think aiming towards perfection is something that most of us aspire to. Brewing is an obsession. I just don't think that copying macro-brewing practices verbatim is necessarily the way to do that.
 

Similar threads

Frisp
Reducing trub when using a hop spider
Replies
16
Views
416
The Baron
The Baron
Frisp
Frisps brewdays
Replies
1
Views
147
Frisp
Frisp
Berry454
Making a DIY all in one brewing system?
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Druncan
Druncan
Frisp
Starting back with AG basics (for a while at least)
2
Replies
20
Views
898
Twostage
Twostage
R
Choosing between a 60º and 120º conical fermenter
Replies
2
Views
497
royger
R

Latest posts

Back
Top