NEIPA yeast experiment

Therefore, you are communally obligated to post the questionnaire with the reveal. I will determine the status of the questionnaire after it happened. SRRQ is very good. SRQ is good. SQ is decent. Q is turrible. This will influence the relevance of the results.

This experiment will be scrutinized to the Nth degree if and only if, I feel like typing after I read it.

 

This leads me to believe you have not prepared a proper SRRQ and now I'm doubtful you have acquired blindfolds, but was pretty sure you had at least one stashed by your bedside. This tasting expurrimunt better be on the uTube or I'm calling bullocks on the whole thing!

 

Trust is something people earn. How you conduct this exburriment will determine the extent of trust you have in the context of beer. Sadly, I don't think you realize how important this is.

Of course, I'm just having some fun pulling your pants down a bit for shits and giggles. It will still be interesting to see the results.

Thanks for the effort!

 

Since I think Chico yeast is one of the least desireable strains to use for any beer, I'm hoping your tasters and smellers declare 1318 the victor. I do like the malt profile it leaves behind which isn't too sweet or dry and the booze it produces is cleaner and much more enjoyable than the dreaded and unfortunately ubiquitous Chico strain. The hops aren't significantly better or worse, but I'm not doing a blind A/B or even a real time A/B. However, I do have a pretty good sensory recognition.

 

That's cool, but will the tasters be blindfolded? I want blindfolds so they cant see anything. Big black fuzzy blindfolds. You might be able to use them at swinger parties later in life. If not, sell them on eBay and claim a really hot broad rubbed her business end on them and some super rich guy with a weird fetish from Japan will pay stupid money for them. FACT !!

I don't want someone looking at a cup of gravy and making sensory evaluations that matter while being tainted with bias due to the relative insignificance of appearance. Some people want to love gravy beer. Some people want to hate it. No one should really care that much about what beer looks like. Taste and aroma is where the rubber meets the road! Assigning a significant importance to mouthfeel is something Sigmund Freud might be able to explain.

 

I'm excited for results too. I've got one in the Carboy with 1318 and similar grist. Looks cloudy. I'm interested if I give it to people in a clear glass or a coffee mug, how they would perceive it. Either way, it's looking like 5 gallons of nice brew!
FWIW
FWH: warrior
Citra mosaic and azacca thereafter.

 

Going to be brewing my first all grain brew and am wondering what temp do you mash at for this style?

 

cloudiness adding flour to the mash or boil, pectin contributing to protein haze, oats/rye content ~ 20% or higher. Alpine Nelson one of the original hazy ipas people forget about is about 20% rye grain bil.

 

Yeah, adding flour kind of defeats the supposed purpose of a hazy hoppy beer. Haze for the sake of haze isn’t contributing anything at all. The general idea is that the haze is the result of hop compounds that remain in suspension after interacting with certain yeast strains contributing to the aroma and/or flavor, regardless of any adjuncts used. I mean, sure flour will make a beer hazy, but it isn’t doing anything more than that. Of course the main source of contention for many people, and the point of this experiment, is that the haze isn’t adding anything at all and you can make a beer similar to Julius, for example, which is clear.

 

-> This <- chart may help.

Someone can correct me on the finer points, but with 8 out of 12 correct judgements, I think you can state with a 90% level of statistical reliability that the results are not due to random chance. Actually, I think it's probably higher than 90%, but less than 95% (which you would have needed 13 correct to achieve).

However, since the beers looked different, it may be that appearance rather than taste/aroma tipped off some of the judges. You told them to ignore it, but that's hard to do, unless they completely avoided looking.

 

Jason was very kind to invite me to be part of the evaluation of his experiment. Below is the 'report' I provided to him.

"Last evening with the assistance of my wife I conducted my taste test of your beers. Below is my 'report' as promised.

Is there a plan on how the results of the overall taste testing will be compiled and overall analyzed? If the idea to send the results of your taste test to Drew/Denny and they will compose the 'final report'? If so, feel free to forward my information to them.

Cheers!

Jack


1056 IPA vs. 1318 IPA (blind)

I enlisted my wife to help me so that I could drink these beers blind (not knowing which of the two beers I was drinking).

Test Number 1: Triangle Test



My wife poured the beers into three opaque sample size glasses with two of the same beer being the same. The purpose of the triangle test is to see whether the taste tester can correctly identify the two beers that are the same. I did indeed note a difference after sniffing all three samples and taking a few sips from each glass. My wife indicated that I did properly identify the two same beers. So, needless to say there was for me a recognizable/perceptible difference between the two beers.

Test Number 2: Side-by-Side Taste Test

Appearance:

A: N/A

B: N/A

Aroma:

A: Hop aromas principally of citrus but there was a hint of resin as well. In comparison to B the level of hop aroma is a tiny bit more.

B: Hop aromas principally of citrus but there was a hint of resin as well.


Taste:

A: The flavor follows the nose: mostly citrus but some resin as well in the background. As with the nose there is just a bit more hop flavor intensity vs. B.

B: The flavor follows the nose: mostly citrus but some resin as well in the background.


Mouthfeel:

A: The mouthfeel is more creamy in comparison to B

B: Medium bodied with a more dry finish in comparison to A.


Overall:

A: A tasty IPA. I did appreciate the more creamy mouthfeel. The slightly increased hop aroma/flavor intensity was somewhat nice I suppose.

B: A tasty IPA. An IPA with a dry finish is something that I enjoy as well so….

I stated to my wife that I thought that A was the 1318 beer and B was the 1056 beer.

My wife informed me that I identified the two beers correctly. She said: “You get an A”.


So there was more beer than could fit in the three small sample glasses so she poured them into two Spiegelau IPA glasses. She presented them to me and as I expected the 1318 beer was pretty cloudy while the 1056 beer was clear(er).

My wife had no idea of the purpose of this taste test and I asked her to drink from the two IPA glasses and asked her if she noticed a difference. She remarked that she could but stated “the difference in taste is subtle”. After a few sips she stated that she thought that the 1318 beers as little ‘better’. She finished drinking the 1318 beer while I finished the 1056 beer.

To state my overall opinion here:

I enjoyed drinking both beers. As I mentioned above drinking an IPA that has a ‘dryish’ finish is not a negative for me. Having stated that, I had a slight preference for the 1318 beer taste wise. Having stated that a beer with a cloudy appearance is not exactly something I find particularly appealing. So the bottom line is, I am not sure what the bottom line is.

Beer appreciation is a journey and I am still journeying here I suppose!?!

Cheers!

Jack