Author: Matt Del Fiacco

Every now and then, I’m blown away by the results of an xBmt, particularly certain non-significant ones that leave me instinctually searching for reasons as to why the results turned out the way they did. Based on reader comments, it’s clear I’m not alone, with one of the more common posited explanations having to do with the fact the xBmts focus on single variables in isolation and that perhaps compounding certain variables would create greater differences. Two beers fermented at different temperatures with all else being equal might be too similar to tell apart, but what if the beers were also treated differently in other ways?

I refer to this as the “best practices are insurance” approach and it’s something I openly admit to still following. However, the reportedly positive results of the multiple short & shoddy brew days completed by other contributors, along with some of the surprisingly non-significant xBmt results, led me to question whether this insurance was perhaps illusory, that my adherence to traditionally prescribed methodology was more for me than the beer I was making.

As much as I enjoy brewing, I don’t always have time to squeeze a full brew day in due to how long certain parts of the process can take. If I were able to keep my pipeline flowing by cutting certain corners that would reduce my brew day to a fraction of the time it currently takes, I’d definitely be interested, but only with no sacrifice to the quality of the beer I was making. I finally took it upon myself to see just what this short & shoddy business is all about by putting it up against a beer made using my standard process.

| PURPOSE |

To evaluate the differences between a beer made using an abbreviated mash and boil that was under-pitched then fermented warm and a beer made using a more traditional brewing method.

| METHODS |

I thought it’d be best to brew a clean and simple recipe so that any differences between the beers were easily identifiable.

Wrong Way’s Right Blonde Ale

Recipe Details Batch Size Boil Time IBU SRM Est. OG Est. FG ABV 5.5 gal 60 min 23.9 IBUs 4.7 SRM 1.045 1.011 4.3 % Actuals 1.045 1.01 4.6 % Fermentables Name Amount % Pale Ale Malt (Rahr) 9 lbs 96 Carafoam (Weyermann) 6 oz 4 Hops Name Amount Time Use Form Alpha % Lemondrop 23 g 20 min Boil Pellet 6 Lemondrop 47 g 10 min Boil Pellet 6 Lemondrop 62 g 1 min Boil Pellet 6 Lemondrop 62 g 3 days Dry Hop Pellet 6 Yeast Name Lab Attenuation Temperature American Ale (1056) Wyeast Labs 75% 60°F - 72°F Notes Water Profile: Yellow Malty from Bru’n Water Spreadsheet

I made a starter of Wyeast 1056 American Ale yeast a couple days beforehand that would be pitched only into the traditional batch. The next morning, I began by heating RO water for a full-volume no sparge batch, adjusting it to my mineral profile, one adjusted appropriately for the shorter boil.

I weighed out and milled the grains as the water was heating.

Once the water reached strike temperature, I set the controller for the traditional batch to my desired mash temperature, added the grist filled basket to the water, and gave the mash a gentle stir to ensure there were no dough-balls before turning the recirculation pump on. In order to reduce the potential influence of extraneous variables, I let the short & shoddy strike water sit without grains at strike temperature until the traditional mash had been resting for 30 minutes, at which point I mashed in.

The traditional mash stabilized at 154°F/68°C, my intended mash temp, and the short & shoddy mash initially settled at 153°F/67°C, so I adjusted the controller to bring it up to the same 154°F/68°C. This took about 7 minutes.

Each wort was continuously recirculated and about 15 minutes into each rest, I grabbed small samples for a pH measurements that showed I’d hit my targets.

I weighed out my hop additions during the remaining 15 minutes of the mash.

Once the mashes were finished, I removed the grain baskets, set them over the kettle to drain, then brought the remaining wort to a rolling boil.

The traditional batch received its first dose of hops 40 minutes into the 60 minute boil while the first hop addition was made to the short & shoddy 10 minutes into the 30 minute boil; all subsequent hop additions were made at the same points within the final 20 minutes of either boil. When each boil was complete, I quickly chilled the worts and took hydrometer measurements showing they’d both achieved a similar OG.

I split the wort between two fermentation kegs that were placed in separate chambers. While the traditional batch had the temperature probe insulated against the keg, the probe for the short & shoddy batch was attached with some electrical tape to the inside of the chamber.

Once the traditional wort was down to 64°F/18°C, I pitched the yeast starter and set the chamber to my desired 66°F/19°C fermentation temperature. The short & shoddy batch was pitched with a single fresh pack of the same yeast, no starter, then left to ferment at ambient temperature of 72°F/22°C.

I noticed fermentation activity in the traditional batch kick off several hours before the short & shoddy batch, though both were bubbling away within 16 hours of yeast pitch. After 10 days of activity, signs of fermentation had diminished and I took hydrometer measurements showing both beers had attenuated to the same FG.

Dry hop charges were added to both batches at this time and they were left alone for 48 hours before I proceeded with cold crashing, fining with gelatin, and transferring to serving kegs.

I burst carbonated both beers overnight then reduced the CO2 to serving pressure and left them alone a few more days before I began serving to blind participants.

| RESULTS |

In total, 22 ABNormal Brewers club members with varying levels of experience, all blind to the variable, were served 1 sample of the beer made using traditional methods and 2 samples of the beer made using short & shoddy methods, then instructed to select the unique sample. While 12 tasters (p<0.05) would have had to select the dosed sample to reach statistical significance, a total of 13 (p=0.012) identified the odd-beer-out, suggesting participants were indeed able to reliably distinguish a beer made with traditional methods from one made with an abbreviated mash and boil that was under-pitched and fermented warm.

The 13 participants who correctly selected the unique sample in the triangle test were instructed to complete a brief set of additional questions comparing only the two different beers, still blind to the nature of the xBmt. Likely aligning with the expectations of many, 6 tasters chose the traditional beer as their most preferred while only 2 reported liking the short & shoddy beer more. Equally as interesting is the fact 4 tasters reported having no preference despite perceiving a difference between the beers. Only 1 lone participant said they experienced no difference between the beers.

My Impressions: Based on the initial similarities in gravity and wort color, I wasn’t so sure I was going to be able to tell these beers apart in semi-blind triangle attempts. Out of 3 attempts, I selected the unique sample twice, obviously not perfect. I perceived the traditionally brewed batch as having a generally cleaner flavor profile with a crisp finish while the short & shoddy batch was a bit less defined and seemed to leave a lingering aftertaste in my mouth. Overall, I’m really happy with both beers, and based on aroma alone I cant tell them apart at all. In blind triangles, I got this correct 2/3 times. I’m startled by how similar they are.

| DISCUSSION |

The triangle test is an elegant method for determining whether people can reliably distinguish a difference between beers, providing us some information as to whether a particular variable or set of variables has a noticeable impact. In the case of this xBmt, participants were indeed capable of reliably distinguishing a beer made using traditional methods from one made using short & shoddy methods. However, a major downside to the triangle test is that it tells us very little about the degree of difference perceived by tasters between samples, only that the they were disparate enough for people to tell them apart at a statistically significant level.

It’s not sound to make extrapolations based how many tasters more or less than the significance threshold identified the unique sample, and we’re not going to do that here, which leaves us with only the anecdotal reports of correct participants and the perceptions of yours truly. Despite a plurality of participants endorsing the traditional beer as most preferred, not a single one described the short & shoddy beer using terms that would indicate anything was wrong with it. Moreover, I was shocked at just how similar these beers were, even though I was able to tell them apart 2 out of 3 times. I felt both were solid examples of the style with no noticeable off-flavors, which blows my mind.

Considering the objectively observable similarities between both beers, I’m left asking– just what is responsible for the difference? Maybe it’s true what many have speculated, that while mash length, boil duration, pitch rate, and fermentation temperature on their own may not have a perceptible impact, combining these “shoddy” practices does. Ultimately though, I was happy with both beers, and I’ll have no problem shortening my brew day now and then to keep my pipeline rolling.

If you have thoughts about this xBmt, please share them in the comments section below!

Support Brülosophy In Style!

All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!

Follow Brülosophy on:

If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support Us page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!

Advertisements

Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

Email



Like this: Like Loading...