Northeast Pales/IPA/DIPA

The last sentence is true.

 

This is another same ingredients different Brewer test run.
http://brulosophy.com/2014/11/27/a-...diosyncrasies-of-brewing-exbeeriment-results/

 

Jeff, that was an intriguing experiment which demonstrates how the nuances of individual brewing process/techniques can indeed have noticeable impacts on the resulting beer. I originally read this as a published article in the Oct. 2015 BYO.

I think it is worth pointing out that some aspects of brewing process was specified in this experiment:

• Mash at 152 degrees F for 60 minutes
• Boil for 60 minutes
• Ferment at 65-66 degrees F

Everything else was up to the decisions of the individual brewers (and the constraints of their individual brewing systems).

Cheers!

 

After reading it, two things jumped out.

1) The result, i.e. beers made by different brewers taste different, isn't really very surprising. I would have been surprised if the beers had been identical.

2) It wasn't really an experiment at all. What hypothesis was being tested? What was the control and what was the variable?

Also, it's a shame that there was no attempt to hypothesize about any potential connections between any of the observations and any of the brewers' variables. You could design a real experiment around that kind of hypothesis. Still, it was refreshing to read a Brulosophy write-up that didn't involve an all star panel of tasters that usually can't seem to detect significant differences between beers.

 

They certainly proved they can make mediocre beer with a mediocre recipe. Go figure!

 

“| PURPOSE |

To evaluate the perceptible differences in a beer made from the exact same recipe brewed by 5 different homebrewers.”

 

Thanks, I can read. What hypothesis was being tested? (There was none.) What was the control and what was the variable? (There was no control and there was no test variable stated.)

 

Contrary to the rather simplified and somewhat naïve "scientific method" that we were all, at some point, taught in school, not all scientific investigations necessarily involve a hypothesis. Sometimes an investigator will just try some stuff and see what happens. I found the aforementioned article rather interesting and informative, even though there was no actual hypothesis. Cheers!

 

Maybe. But I object to investigations with no control and independent variable tested being referred to as experiments. This particularly Brulosophy "experiment" would get an F.

 

I don't think there is much value saying process is more important than ingredients or vice verse. Selecting the right ingredients and executing the correct process are both important to making an excellent beer. Make a major mistake with either one or and you got yourself a 20 point loser.

 

I'm pretty much in the 50/50 process/ingredient importance camp, assuming ingredients also means recipe. OTOH, recipe/ingredients is the easy part. Process is harder, so if you can at some point take recipe/ingredients as a given, that leaves process as the important thing to focus on.

 

I was trying to articulate this thought when writing my post, but I couldn't find a way to phrase it succinctly and gave up.

 

OK guys, give your buddies in your homebew club/circle the same ingredients and see if they can make the same beer. You can even specify the process tighter than what Marshall did. You will get different beers.

 

I might try a London III/Trois IPA. How'd you go about blending? Make two equal size starters and pitch together? Have you tried repitching the cake?

 

Going back through this thread, I think everyone would agree with that.

 

Yea I just made a couple 1500ml starters. And pitched about half of each. I never pitch a full flask of yeast. Just keep adding wort and brewing with it till it changes flavor profile in a negative way.

 

I came across this article, im sure it has been discussed and is beating a dead horse. But here it is anyway https://craftbeercellar.com/blog/2015/09/cloudy-with-a-chance-of-turbidity/ . Interesting Take or turbid beers. Personally, I enjoy it. Since the transition to the new brewery, Trillium has had issues with this due to low hop oil count and scaling. Just seems like something has been missing from their brews because of it. Can't wait until their brews are back dialed in

 

That article made me think of a recent competition I entered my IPA in. I used London Ale III and it was cloudy as to be expected. Both judges made negative comments on the cloudiness and suggested I use a fining agent next time. I wonder if a separate category could be created for these types of IPA's or if I should have added special notes indicating that I was going for a NE Style IPA. Regardless, it seems like appearance still matters to a lot of people. Me personally, I have always been a "function" over "form" type of person.

 

I wonder if trillium,tree house, HF, other half etc etc ever enter and or place at GABF??

 

I totally agree that these NE IPAs should be in a league of they're own and not judged in the same category as the brilliantly clear IPA's.