Pitching Rate Experiment

[a10t2]

Based on the discussion that got started in this thread, I wanted to see if there were enough people interested to get good data from a survey on pitching rates. Basically, everyone seems to like the idea of the recent BBR/BYO survey, but since they weren't working from identical samples (and had a small number of respondents) it's hard to infer much from the results.

What I would do is brew a six gallon batch of something (probably a lightly hopped pale ale, for simplicity), split it in half, pitch a standard amount of yeast into one fermenter, and under-pitch the other. I would then bottle both beers and ship three bottles (two of one, one of the other) to anyone who wanted to participate. I'd probably include some sort of feedback form so that we could get A/B/C answers to common questions and be able to do data analysis, in addition to more subjective observations.

The sticking point is cost - not the beer, but shipping. To FedEx three bottles in the Lower 48 is about $10. Twenty sets of three would be produced, so we're talking about roughly $200. What I'm wondering is if there are enough people willing to pay that for us to get good data out of it.

What's in it for you? Well, three bottles of at least mediocre beer, of course. But hopefully also some sort of consensus on what is apparently a contentious issue among homebrewers.

I think this could be a great thing for clubs to do at a meeting (although everyone would have to fill out their own forms, without discussion). A set of samples would easily be able to cover 3-4 people, and make it pretty inexpensive for them to participate.

So whether you're interested or not, answer the poll. If you have any comments or suggestions feel free to post or PM me. Hopefully we can make this happen.

[Legman]

I was only joking when I nominated you for the experiment, but if you're really gonna do it.....then count me in.

Edit: Yes, I would pay.

[blatz]

I would do it, pay, and could probably get at least 2 other BJCP judges to come over and do the test with me.

[jezmez68]

Do we have to be BJCP judges? I voted for the pay option. I can send you $10 concealed cash easy and will give honest answers, but I'm no BJCP.

[jezmez68]

Also, just curious, what kind of OG are you going for in the pale?

[winnph]

Yup, and would pay -- any chance you'd take PayPal for ease of payment? I forget whether there are fees involved when it comes to depositing PayPal funds into bank accounts, but I'd be willing to pay my share of that too.

[winnph]

This should be a sticky!

[narcout]

Sounds interesting, I would be willing to chip in though I don't actually know any other homebrewers or BJCP judges (and I'm not one myself) in person.

[blatz]

hey guys, I did not mean to infer that Sean was requiring BJCP judges, I just mentioned that to say that I could get at least three tasters together that have some experience.

[darthmorgoth]

i'm in; i do believe that i can judge beers, although i am not a certified card carrier, except for the gold prospectors association.

let me know when and how and where to pay,
darth

[a10t2]

Absolutely, BJCP and non-BJCP tasters are both welcome. I've done enough comps as a brewer and a judge to know that passing the BJCP test doesn't mean you taste things any better, and vice versa.

Paypal, checks, cash, all fine with me. I wouldn't be taking credit cards via PayPal, so IIRC there would be no fees.

OG will probably be around 1.055. In thinking about it a little more tonight, I'm wondering if an amber might get the malt/hop balance a little more to the center, and make the results more broadly applicable. If/when we get to that point, I'll try to take as many suggestions as possible into account when designing the recipe.

[Tyandam]

I will gladly pay 10 bucks, and I know I could get a couple people to do the tasting with me to get more than one opinion.

[onthekeg]

Not that tasting the beer and getting opinions on the attenuation isn't a good plan, but I would recommend taking samples from each batch and run them on an HPLC with a carbohydrate column. This will give you a break down of the carbohydrates that are in the solution and if you have a UV/VIS detector at the end, you could also get the alcohol and organic acid levels. It would be more accurate and impartial. And no I'm not volunteering for this, but someone may have access on the board to do this step.

[winnph]

....It would be more accurate and impartial....

As I understand it, this will be a blind tasting (where no one knows which beer is from which batch), so I think a tasting (with a large enough sample size) is superior to a chemical analysis.

That is, assuming the goal is to make beer that tastes better, rather than beer that meets some chemical profile that someone has decided means it tastes better.

Not saying it shouldn't be done, just that I'd be far more interested in the results of the taste test than the results of the analysis.

[tom sawyer]

I'd pay to play.

My only comment would be that the beer should be somewhere around 1.060, something on the upper range of whats considered low enough for a non-starter pitch. I think we can all agree that a 1.030 beer won't be hurt real bad.

Also, this phenomenon is going to be affected by yeast and style. I'm not sure you want a real hoppy beer as that might mask the fruity nature of more or less esters. And I suppose you'd want to use a yeast that ferments clean without fruitiness, in order to be able to assess a very low ester level with one that might be higher. If you used a Belgian, you'd be looking at fruity vs more fruity and that might be tougher to discern.

All in all, I don't think you can make any generalizations based on an experiment like this. But I'd love to drink a few beers in the name of science!