The Impact of Kettle Trub - Part 2 | xBmt Results!

[ZebulonBrewer]

I think the reason why he did one big batch was to make sure it was extreme differences between the two. If that wasn't his motive it was definitely a byproduct.
He does somewhat do the filtering by tilting the kettle. I don't think I fully understand why you want to see two separate batches. When one batch essentially has two batches worth of trub in it, and the other batch is a pretty normal batch without much trub in it at all, it kinda proves the point better, in my opinion.

I see your point. Having the two extremes should bring out any differences more-so than what I am suggesting. I guess I was looking at it as that one of them is unrealistic, so why do it. Both are good points, but exacerbating the effects of high/low trub is probably the way to go.

 

[biertourist]

I just know that my go to IPA that I have made 50 times seems to taste different trub vs no-trub, and I somehow choose to waste the last 2 quarts of trub at the bottom of my kettle.

.

The study that I linked to covers this angle, too. Reduced IBU levels for hoppy beers when too much trub is passed to the fermenter. -You're not imagining that.

The other studies referenced include double blind tasting results, too.

Adam

 

[Brulosopher]

yeah, nice study!

I'm a bit confused...if you can consistently taste a difference then why do you think the eight people that correctly identified the trub beer are just lucky/good guessers?

If you can consistently and correctly tell the difference over and over then to me there is a difference in the taste. I bet some of the 8 folks that got it right can truly taste a difference.

If 8 people got it right then 10 people said there was a difference between the 2 identical non-trub beers. Clearly these people were incapable tasters that day.
It seems like this is more of a study of how many people in the general population can't taste subtle differences in beer. Kinda explains why my brother-in-law and his friends love the taste of PBR.

I wonder how many of the 8 thought the different beer tasted better or worse?

I'm always very biased... like most people when they think they can taste a difference when they know the variable manipulated.

Before doing more experiments, I think the tasters should pre-qualified to a certain level otherwise the results are basically watered-down to genpop.

Apparently, equivalent tasters is one of the assumptions of triangle taste testing.



Take the 8 people that got it right and test them again to reduce the guess factor to 1 in 9 and maybe again to take it to 1 in 27 and see how many are left. The ones left standing at the end of 3 rounds should be the future tasters. If nobody is standing after 3 rounds then this beer kicks ass and I would go with the findings. But I would still harbor questions knowing that Brulosopher can taste a difference,







If you want to reduce some of the bias out of the test then IMO you should go double-blind and even brulosopher doesn't know the identity of the samples, allow no interaction between tasters, randomize the numbering and placement of the cups, blindfold the tasters, and not tell the tasters (some of which are home brewers) that this is a trub vs no-trub test.



Some of that stuff along with a qualified tasting panel is what is needed for the crowd on here that likes to submit samples in competition where the tasting panel CAN tell the difference.



I don't really care about competitions. I just know that my go to IPA that I have made 50 times seems to taste different trub vs no-trub, and I somehow choose to waste the last 2 quarts of trub at the bottom of my kettle.



.

This is pragmatic homebrew science, the purpose is to test whether the average beer drinker is able to distinguish between beers with a single variable manipulated; my participants are arguably slightly above average tasters. A trained panel would yield much less applicable results, IMO.

 

[grathan]

This is pragmatic homebrew science, the purpose is to test whether the average beer drinker is able to distinguish between beers with a single variable manipulated; my participants are arguably slightly above average tasters. A trained panel would yield much less applicable results, IMO.

It's not very pragmatic if you don't mention oxygenation. As Adam suggested the trub is yeast fuel. If memory serves you oxygenate with shaking which means the trub beer benefiting hugely from the trub.

 

[biertourist]

A trained panel would yield much less applicable results, IMO.

What?!?

I must be misunderstanding / misinterpreting what you're saying because on face value this is complete crazy-talk!

Of course a trained panel yields much better results. Your panel is your measuring "instrument" in this case; a better trained and calibrated panel means a more accurate instrument and a more ACCURATE result.


If the differences in your results are below the taste threshold of your participants, that doesn't mean that there's not a difference.



Having said all that the results from actual calibrated and experience tasting panels, referenced in the study I linked to largely agree with you when it comes to a certain level on fresh beers. -On aged beers the results seem to flip.

The other major issue here is that when people jump to major conclusions as a result: "trub doesn't matter, just pass it all" -they're going to reach a point at which it DOES matter. It also matters more on high gravity / ABV beers and when in other fermentation conditions that also produce higher levels of fusol alcohols.

-Brewing a high gravity all grain beer and pitch a high gravity belgian strain, over oxygenate with an oxygen stone, add too much yeast nutrient and ferment a bit on the high side and you'll have a fusol alcohol mess. High trub levels would be one of the things helping to drive that fusol alcohol production.

Everything in balance.



Higher trub levels / fatty acid levels DO increase fusol alcohol production and DO decrease ester production; that's not really in question, what's in question is whether in the conditions that you brewed your beers in whether it really made a noticable "difference" and whether additional process, time or equipment is "worth it" to reduce the trub.

The answer that we get from the result of the experiment is that "it depends" and high trub levels driving up fusol alcohol production and down ester production might not be a big deal and wasn't in the conditions of the experiment. -When people jump to the conclusion that "trub creating problems downstream in my beer isn't an issue": that's when we have bad science and bad practice and we create new home brewing myths that take us back a step.

-Very similar to the huge leaps people have made with Hot Side Aeration: "HSA doesn't exist; it's a myth; feel free to do dumb things that maximize wort oxygenation -nothing bad will happen". -HSA exists, just like increased fusol alcohol production and increased rate of beer staling when high trub levels exist, it's just that it isn't an issue to be over concerned with under normal practices and for typical beers. (You go overboard because you believe it to be a "myth" and the problem comes back with a vengeance.)


A great experiment, I'm glad you did it. As long as people understand the constraints and don't leap to grossly exaggerated conclusions, they'll be fine.

Unfortunately there's already a "holy war" with people picking sides of this argument looking for further justification to their very black and white view of the issue.



Adam

 

[JKoravos]

What?!?

I must be misunderstanding / misinterpreting what you're saying because on face value this is complete crazy-talk!

I interpreted the comment meaning that 99.9% of beer drinkers aren't trained tasters so the results would only be truly applicable to 0.1% of beer drinkers. He'd rather have more a "average" test panel that leads to results that are more in line with the average homebrewer/beer drinker.

It's a matter of what you're going for. If you want to determine if these changes are of consequence to your average brewer, use "average brewers" as the panel. If you wan to know if there's ANY effect perceptible to the drinker, use a trained panel. Or, save everyone some time and just send it to the lab for analysis.

 

[biertourist]

I interpreted the comment meaning that 99.9% of beer drinkers aren't trained tasters so the results would only be truly applicable to 0.1% of beer drinkers. He'd rather have more a "average" test panel that leads to results that are more in line with the average homebrewer/beer drinker.

It's a matter of what you're going for. If you want to determine if these changes are of consequence to your average brewer, use "average brewers" as the panel. If you wan to know if there's ANY effect perceptible to the drinker, use a trained panel. Or, save everyone some time and just send it to the lab for analysis.

Depends how you tout the results and whether those observing the results understand the constraints.

The impact for that beer wasn't noticed.

More trub, a higher fermentation temp, higher gravity / ABV beer, more oxygenation more nutrients -all / any of those things also ramp up fusol alcohol production and restrain esters.

All that's been proven is that within the constrains of the experiment, for which there are many, high trub levels didn't make an appreciable difference.



As long as no one takes the results and jumps to wide conclusions such as "Trub having a negative effect on your beer / driving up fusol alcohol production and down ester production is a MYTH!", we're good.

-I'd be pretty surprised if that hasn't already happened, though.

Adam

 

[masaba]

Depends how you tout the results and whether those observing the results understand the constraints.

The impact for that beer wasn't noticed.

More trub, a higher fermentation temp, higher gravity / ABV beer, more oxygenation more nutrients -all / any of those things also ramp up fusol alcohol production and restrain esters.

All that's been proven is that within the constrains of the experiment, for which there are many, high trub levels didn't make an appreciable difference.



As long as no one takes the results and jumps to wide conclusions such as "Trub having a negative effect on your beer / driving up fusol alcohol production and down ester production is a MYTH!", we're good.

-I'd be pretty surprised if that hasn't already happened, though.

Adam

I would say that all too often I see on these forums folks who take things to the other extreme by saying things like you must do X to make good beer (remove all kettle trub, aerate with pure O2, pitch cold, etc.), when in fact great beer can be made in a variety of ways. From everything I have read on Brulosopher's site he states very well the set-up and doesn't make overly broad claims. I think he is actually breaking down some of the you must do X type myths, personally.

 

[biertourist]

I would say that all too often I see on these forums folks who take things to the other extreme by saying things like you must do X to make good beer (remove all kettle trub, aerate with pure O2, pitch cold, etc.), when in fact great beer can be made in a variety of ways. From everything I have read on Brulosopher's site he states very well the set-up and doesn't make overly broad claims. I think he is actually breaking down some of the you must do X type myths, personally.

I see quite a bit of both and normally it's about the author just trying to support what they've purchased / what they do currently.

-If they remove all trub or recently purchased a trub filter, then they of course insist that you can't brew good beer unless you've removed all trub. If they've got a system and process that passes a ton of trub then of course trub doesn't make a bit of difference.

Bought an oxygen setup? -Then "you can't make good lagers / high ABV beers without one"; aerate and have no desire to buy an oxygen setup then of course you can make great lager and high abv beers without pure oxygen; don't "waste your money".

Switched to plastic fermenters after a horrific glass carboy accident? -Plastic makes great beer and glass is a waste of money and dangerous. Switched from plastic to glass after a scratched fermenter infection? -Plastic results in off flavors, infection and oxidation and plastic is "EWW".

I agree you can make a great, high 30s scoring beer in a variety of ways; when you want to move from high 30s to mid 40s, then all of a sudden all the various shades of gray on each of these little issues start to matter and there's lots of edge case beers and styles where those things matter again.

Adam

 

[JKoravos]

Depends how you tout the results and whether those observing the results understand the constraints.

The impact for that beer wasn't noticed.

More trub, a higher fermentation temp, higher gravity / ABV beer, more oxygenation more nutrients -all / any of those things also ramp up fusol alcohol production and restrain esters.

All that's been proven is that within the constrains of the experiment, for which there are many, high trub levels didn't make an appreciable difference.

As long as no one takes the results and jumps to wide conclusions such as "Trub having a negative effect on your beer / driving up fusol alcohol production and down ester production is a MYTH!", we're good.

-I'd be pretty surprised if that hasn't already happened, though.

Adam

I'm in 100% agreement with you. The unfortunate part of these things is that people take a nice little piece of data and apply it across all possible scenarios. It's an inevitable side effect of feeding information to people who don't understand the complexity of the system.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't share these kind of things, just that you need to be prepared for the fallout.

 

[huckbof]

I'm always very biased... like most people when they think they can taste a difference when they know the variable manipulated.

yeah, I agree that is why I wouldn't tell the tasters what variables were manipulated, just ask them to pick the beer that is different

from http://brulosophy.com/2015/03/22/the-impact-of-kettle-trub-part-2-exbeeriment-results/

"the no-trub beer had what I can only describe as a subtle plastic aroma and flavor"

so are you saying that the plastic taste/aroma is not there?

 

[ultravista]

Subscribing.

 

[Brulosopher]

I see quite a bit of both and normally it's about the author just trying to support what they've purchased / what they do currently.

-If they remove all trub or recently purchased a trub filter, then they of course insist that you can't brew good beer unless you've removed all trub. If they've got a system and process that passes a ton of trub then of course trub doesn't make a bit of difference.

Bought an oxygen setup? -Then "you can't make good lagers / high ABV beers without one"; aerate and have no desire to buy an oxygen setup then of course you can make great lager and high abv beers without pure oxygen; don't "waste your money".

Switched to plastic fermenters after a horrific glass carboy accident? -Plastic makes great beer and glass is a waste of money and dangerous. Switched from plastic to glass after a scratched fermenter infection? -Plastic results in off flavors, infection and oxidation and plastic is "EWW".

I agree you can make a great, high 30s scoring beer in a variety of ways; when you want to move from high 30s to mid 40s, then all of a sudden all the various shades of gray on each of these little issues start to matter and there's lots of edge case beers and styles where those things matter again.

Adam

This is so accurate. Confirmation bias runs rampant in this hobby.

 

[dfhar]

I agree you can make a great, high 30s scoring beer in a variety of ways; when you want to move from high 30s to mid 40s, then all of a sudden all the various shades of gray on each of these little issues start to matter and there's lots of edge case beers and styles where those things matter again.

This is the elephant in the room.

A lot of the disagreement that takes place in discussions like this is due to the fact that the statement "issue X doesn't matter" means completely different things to the people who are trying to brew high 30's beers (brewed to style with no flaws) vs. the people who are trying to brew mid 40's beers (truly world-class example of style; one sip makes you say "Wow!"). Unfortunately, nobody identifies which camp they're in when entering the discussion.

At the very least I am convinced, not only by Brulosopher's (and others) experiments, but also via my own experience (I haven't tasted Brulosopher's beer), that it is possible to consistently brew a mid to high 30's quality beer of moderate gravity that will be consumed within a month or two by simply dumping the contents of the kettle, trub and all, into the fermenter.

I still haven't cracked the secret of consistently brewing a mid 40's quality German or Czech lager (or any beer for that matter), so for me the jury is still out on that one.

 

[passedpawn]

[moved to blogs and bloggers]

 

[JKoravos]

This is the elephant in the room.

A lot of the disagreement that takes place in discussions like this is due to the fact that the statement "issue X doesn't matter" means completely different things to the people who are trying to brew high 30's beers (brewed to style with no flaws) vs. the people who are trying to brew mid 40's beers (truly world-class example of style; one sip makes you say "Wow!"). Unfortunately, nobody identifies which camp they're in when entering the discussion.

At the very least I am convinced, not only by Brulosopher's (and others) experiments, but also via my own experience (I haven't tasted Brulosopher's beer), that it is possible to consistently brew a mid to high 30's quality beer of moderate gravity that will be consumed within a month or two by simply dumping the contents of the kettle, trub and all, into the fermenter.

I still haven't cracked the secret of consistently brewing a mid 40's quality German or Czech lager (or any beer for that matter), so for me the jury is still out on that one.

That's the thing. I don't think it's very hard to make really drinkable beer. I think most brewers are perfectly happy with that. For those looking to make absolutely exceptional beer these fine issues start to matter. I think most homebrewers are shortcutting in so many areas that a single variable, like trub content, is probably masked by 10 other things they are doing. Lack of oxygenation, inconsistent pitching rates, marginal fermentation temp control, lack of/no mash pH control, water chemistry, old hops/ingredients and the list goes on.

This isn't commentary on this particular experiment, just homebrewing technical discourse in general.

 

[8rnw8]

I enjoyed both experiments immensely. 3.5 hops however, is about 1/3 to 1/4 the amount I use in one of my ipa's.



I would love to see this experiment performed with a recipe utilizing close to 8+ ounces of hops.



I also have to wonder if there isn't a huge difference between transferring over hop trub that had been boiled for 60 minutes, vs transferring over trub from flameout or whirlpool additions.

 

[JKoravos]

It would be far more streamlined and fruitful for the community if these threads could stay in the brew science forum. This is a brew science discussion, lets have it in the appropriate forum, eh?

 

[Brulosopher]

It would be far more streamlined and fruitful for the community if these threads could stay in the brew science forum. This is a brew science discussion, lets have it in the appropriate forum, eh?

I agree, but I was privately asked to post only to the Blogs & Bloggers forum... posted new results there yesterday and I'm pretty sure it went unseen :/

 

[JKoravos]

I agree, but I was privately asked to post only to the Blogs & Bloggers forum... posted new results there yesterday and I'm pretty sure it went unseen :/

I figured as much.

 

[passedpawn]

I agree, but I was privately asked to post only to the Blogs & Bloggers forum... posted new results there yesterday and I'm pretty sure it went unseen :/

Of course I want you to post your results here, anywhere on HBT. But if you're just posting links to your blog, then the bloggers forum is exactly the place for that. It's the way our forum is arranged and makes sense I think. There are a lot of blogs out there, and the Bloggers forum was created (as I understand it) to encourage bloggers to drop links on HBT without cluttering up the technical areas.

Your blog is exceptional and I think everybody should have a look. Your experiments generate a lot of discussion, so it's kind of a gray area in Austin's intent when he created the Bloggers area. Anyway, here's the "rule" regarding bloggers. We (admins/mods) change things around here all the time, we can talk about it further (PM? or here, I don't care) if you'd like.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=507395

 

[Brulosopher]

Of course I want you to post your results here, anywhere on HBT. But if you're just posting links to your blog, then the bloggers forum is exactly the place for that. It's the way our forum is arranged and makes sense I think. There are a lot of blogs out there, and the Bloggers forum was created (as I understand it) to encourage bloggers to drop links on HBT without cluttering up the technical areas.

Your blog is exceptional and I think everybody should have a look. Your experiments generate a lot of discussion, so it's kind of a gray area in Austin's intent when he created the Bloggers area. Anyway, here's the "rule" regarding bloggers. We (admins/mods) change things around here all the time, we can talk about it further (PM? or here, I don't care) if you'd like.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=507395

Oh dude, I hope that didn't come across in a perk practice way... after rereading my comment, I'm afraid it likely did. Sorry about sounding like a whiny butthead, that certainly was not my intent. I appreciate you and the rest of the HBT crew for opening up the bloggers forum!!