Search results

Do you have sources for that? I mean, in the very very short term, I agree - gelatin does seem to help a beer mature (drop particulate/yeast), but in exbeeriments to date, we haven't been able to determine a flavor impact...

@Peruvian802 KAB4 is identical, but has painted frame that burns off.

I temp Probed the starter beer, but had a fermometer on the vial batch. They tracked very close together.

Great discussion guys and gals. Glad you're enjoying the test... and don't forget... split a batch and try for yourselves... and share the results!!

Not really. I mean... I usually don't have time to brew through the week, but it only takes 10-15 minutes to make a starter if I think I will be brewing next weekend.

I am in agreement with your read of things here. I should point out what the test DID NOT prove. It did not PROVE that the beers were even indistinguishable. My subjective experience was that they were very nearly identical, if not identical. But the statistics did not show a "identical"...

Thanks. Fixed. I can't think of anything, chart wise, that would have made this more clear. 9/20 got it right. 8/20 chose one of the two wrong beers, while only 3 chose the other wrong answer. As for all the discussion about how broadly this could generalize, the prudent behavior is to...

No, Brulosopher is Marshall Schott, the founder of brulosophy. I am a friend and contributor to the site that wrote this latest piece.

Proven is WAAAAY too strong. the correct conclusion from my article is that we "Failed to prove making a starter with WLP090 resulted in a statistically significant difference, when compared to a direct-pitched vial on this particular wort"

Wha? Wha What? I don't get it.

I wrote up a recent exBEERiment that takes a look at yeast performance between starter and a white labs vial pitched directly. Enjoy! http://brulosophy.com/2015/04/20/yeast-pitch-rate-single-vial-vs-yeast-starter-exbeeriment-results/

But a starter takes 18-24 hours, this takes WAAAAY longer.... for a 6 pack? No thanks. No time for that.

Stackable Crates. I like it.

Wow, this is still going? I gave up 20 pages ago. By the sounds of things, it sounds the the OP/Troll continues to dismiss all possible solutions because he knows better.

Table sugar always

Not if you're using 100% fermentables like table sugar. They can attenuate well below 1.000

Doesn't seem out of line... Given 25% sugar... I suspect it will be a little harsh or thin, but you never know. It will change dramatically when carbed if you were testing hydrometer samples.

Grain bill? Mash temp? Yeast used? Sugar content? My tripels run 1.005-1.008 , 20% sugar, mashed at 150ish. Wlp500. 1.000 seems really dry.

OK, now you have me intrigued (even if somewhat annoyed at your dismissive attitude). FWIW - I didn't make up the water recommendation, and I would recommend reading the thread I linked. If that is 20X more mineral than you're adding, I'd say you're way under-mineralized. 1 tsp = approx 5 grams...

I'd say you're loading up with too much mineral. Are you brewing Extract? If so, you shouldn't really bother with any mineral additions to RO Water - the minerals are already concentrated in the extract from when the maltster did the original mash and concentration. Just brew with straight RO...