Return to TheElectricBrewery.com
Home ]   [ Products ]   [ Recipes ]   [ Testimonials ]   [ Gallery ]   [ FAQ ]   [ What's New ]   [ About / Contact  ]   [ Newsletter ]

Log inLog in   RegisterRegister   User Control PanelUser Control Panel   Private MessagesPrivate Messages   MembershipClub Memberships   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   Photo AlbumsPhoto Albums   Forum FAQForum FAQ

Lagering and FuP Experiment

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Printer-friendly view    TheElectricBrewery.com Forum Index -> Brewing Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mjo2125



Joined: 27 Feb 2017
Posts: 149
Location: Dayton, OH

Drinking: Cognac Vanilla Porter, Irish Red Ale, Belgian Pale Ale


PostLink    Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:04 pm    Post subject: Lagering and FuP Experiment Reply with quote


        Register to remove this ad. It's free!
For those interested in Fermentation Under Pressure (FuP), my local brew club has sponsored an experiment being conducted by myself and a fellow club member. The experiment will test to see (at least among our members) if there is a sensory, if not statistical, difference between a split batch of Czech Pilsner Lager - one using a traditional lagering method and one using FuP.

A triangle testing method will be used to taste test the samples – 3 samples (2 of the lager and 1 of the FuP lager). The participants will be asked to identify the FuP sample. Right and wrong answers will be tabulated for statistical analysis. For example, if most of the participants can't identify the different beer, the stats will determine if the results are meaningful or statistically significant (i.e. there's no sensory difference between the two beers). This is a same method used by food companies when they reformulate their recipes.

Also hoping to get a local university to run gas chromatograph tests on the beers to determine the difference in ester concentrations (should be lower in FuP beer). Ester suppression is one of the reasons for traditional lagering.

Attached is the set up.

Results in November...



DRAFT-FuP-5.pptx
 Description:

Download
 Filename:  DRAFT-FuP-5.pptx
 Filesize:  491.63 KB
 Downloaded:  70 Time(s)

Back to top
perogi



Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 812
Location: NH

Drinking: Perogi Pale, NEIPA, Nutter's Crossing Nut Brown Ale, What the helles a kolsch?

Working on: More Perogi Pale, Edmund Fitzgerald Porter Clone


PostLink    Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interested in hearing your results
Back to top
mjo2125



Joined: 27 Feb 2017
Posts: 149
Location: Dayton, OH

Drinking: Cognac Vanilla Porter, Irish Red Ale, Belgian Pale Ale


PostLink    Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2018 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Update: In-progress fermentation under Pressure

Attached is a chart from the past two days. Fermentation activity started in less than 12 hours from when I pitched the yeast (Wyeast Bohemian Lager) on Friday. Looks like peak activity is already complete. Pressure reached as high as 20 psig and is currently at 15 psig (set pressure). Took a Brix reading this morning @ 5.9 Brix ~ 2.9% ABV still in progress.

Pressure readings were discrete so I used a moving average (BCS-460 logger doesn't accommodate pressure input - bummer). Pressure dropped from 20 to 15 psig overnight.



FuP_CHART-2.pdf
 Description:

Download
 Filename:  FuP_CHART-2.pdf
 Filesize:  114.73 KB
 Downloaded:  20 Time(s)


czech lager.pdf
 Description:

Download
 Filename:  czech lager.pdf
 Filesize:  71.52 KB
 Downloaded:  28 Time(s)



Last edited by mjo2125 on Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:49 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
mjo2125



Joined: 27 Feb 2017
Posts: 149
Location: Dayton, OH

Drinking: Cognac Vanilla Porter, Irish Red Ale, Belgian Pale Ale


PostLink    Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Next Step : Closed Loop Transfer

Terminal gravity was reached in less than a week. Pressure setting backed down to 15 - 17psig. Will let it sit for a day or two. Next step is a Closed Loop Transfer (CLT) to mini kegs in preparation for clarifying and conditioning. Attached is the closed loop schematic. No need for a spunding valve in CLT with pressure-rated equipment (and keg PRVs) The attached procedure should result in an O2-free transfer with no foaming.

Note: A corny keg (fermenter) spare outlet dip tube was shortened by about 3" and used to avoid pulling trub.



Closed Loop Transfer.pdf
 Description:

Download
 Filename:  Closed Loop Transfer.pdf
 Filesize:  121.21 KB
 Downloaded:  35 Time(s)

Back to top
mjo2125



Joined: 27 Feb 2017
Posts: 149
Location: Dayton, OH

Drinking: Cognac Vanilla Porter, Irish Red Ale, Belgian Pale Ale


PostLink    Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Next Step: Conditioning and Cold Crash

Closed Loop Transfer to mini keg went well - no foaming or O2 pick-up. Once flow was established, hands off until keg was filled. Will naturally carbonate with the spunding valve. attached are pics.

It has been observed on various blogs about the difference in carbonation with pressure fermentation - the carbonation bubbles tend to be smaller and finer with pressure fermentation and natural carbonation. My observation in taking samples is the same.



Condition.pdf
 Description:

Download
 Filename:  Condition.pdf
 Filesize:  91.23 KB
 Downloaded:  27 Time(s)


CLT.pdf
 Description:

Download
 Filename:  CLT.pdf
 Filesize:  125.09 KB
 Downloaded:  28 Time(s)

Back to top
mjo2125



Joined: 27 Feb 2017
Posts: 149
Location: Dayton, OH

Drinking: Cognac Vanilla Porter, Irish Red Ale, Belgian Pale Ale


PostLink    Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Timeline Comparison: attached

After the closed loop transfer to the secondaries was completed, I observed a phenomenon – after the transfer, I depressured the corny keg. There was about 3” of beer and trub at the bottom.

About 10 seconds after I opened the lid, there was a violent eruption (much like a volcano) at the bottom of the corny – I can only guess that the yeast cell walls ruptured after the pressure was released – much like a scuba diver ascending too fast from the bottom… my takeaway – don’t plan on harvesting yeast if you ferment under pressure…



Days to FG-5.pdf
 Description:

Download
 Filename:  Days to FG-5.pdf
 Filesize:  125.03 KB
 Downloaded:  32 Time(s)

Back to top
perogi



Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 812
Location: NH

Drinking: Perogi Pale, NEIPA, Nutter's Crossing Nut Brown Ale, What the helles a kolsch?

Working on: More Perogi Pale, Edmund Fitzgerald Porter Clone


PostLink    Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looking forward to your tasting step.
Back to top
mjo2125



Joined: 27 Feb 2017
Posts: 149
Location: Dayton, OH

Drinking: Cognac Vanilla Porter, Irish Red Ale, Belgian Pale Ale


PostLink    Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Next post will be related to the triangle taste test. Full experiment protocol in powerpoint available off-line due to file size for anyone interested.
Back to top
mjo2125



Joined: 27 Feb 2017
Posts: 149
Location: Dayton, OH

Drinking: Cognac Vanilla Porter, Irish Red Ale, Belgian Pale Ale


PostLink    Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Next step: Package and perform triangle test.
Attached is the sample form for each judge.

The Statistics behind the Triangle Test:

This test is a popular method in sensory evaluation. It is used to determine whether there is a perceivable difference between two samples (in this case, a traditional lager and a beer fermented under pressure). In a triangle test, the probability of one judge picking the (correct) odd beer by chance is 33% (1 out of 3 sample cups). What we want to determine, statistically, is whether the result of this experiment (identification of the odd beer) could have occurred purely by chance or by some cause (e.g. the method of fermentation used). To do this, we need to develop a hypothesis which will either be rejected or not rejected.

A hypothesis is typically stated as the norm or status quo. In this case, the hypothesis (Ho) is stated as p = .33 (the true proportion of the judges that can correctly identify the odd-beer-out strictly by chance) meaning that all three beers are indistinguishable, except by chance.

The alternate hypothesis (Ha) is that the true proportion of the judges that can correctly identify the odd-beer-out is greater than .33. If (Ha) turns out to be true, it doesn't bode well for pressurized fermentation as an indistinguishable substitute to lagering.

By taking samples (taste tests) and analyzing the results, we can determine a sample "p-value" which is the probability of having observed at least as many correct tasters if (Ho) is true. Statisticians establish a threshold or cut off p-value (alpha) before testing typically equal to .05 or 5%. If our sample p-value turns out to be greater than the 5% cut-off, our hypothesis cannot be rejected - meaning that the beers are the same (indistinguishable from a sensory standpoint). If our sample p-value turns out to be less than the 5% cut-off, our hypothesis can be rejected - meaning that the beers are NOT the same (from a sensory standpoint).

For example, if we take 5 judges and ask them to take the triangle test, the odds that all 5 will randomly pick the odd-beer-out by chance is 0.004 or 0.4% (which is below our threshold of 5%). I could go through the math, but suffice it to say that it is a binomial (apprx bell curve) distribution and 0.4% is the calculated number (attached is a graph).

Let's say, in fact, all 5 judges correctly picked the odd beer. Then it must be inferred that there is in fact a difference between the two beers not attributed to chance (because the odds are very low that all 5 judges would correctly pick the odd beer by chance alone). In this case, (Ho) would be rejected (and Ha would be accepted) and it can be assumed that pressurized fermentation does NOT result in a beer with the same flavor profile as one fermented under traditional lagering.

The triangle test will be conducted in November and will result in a calculated “p-value” based on number of participants and correct choices. The beer bottles will be randomly numbered and randomly placed in each case row – e.g. A-B-A, A-A-B, B-A-A, etc where B is the beer fermented under pressure.



bionomial.pptx
 Description:

Download
 Filename:  bionomial.pptx
 Filesize:  41.92 KB
 Downloaded:  40 Time(s)


test form.pptx
 Description:

Download
 Filename:  test form.pptx
 Filesize:  42.44 KB
 Downloaded:  17 Time(s)

Back to top
Ozarks Mountain Brew



Joined: 22 May 2013
Posts: 684
Location: The Ozark Mountains of Missouri


PostLink    Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

funny this could be phycology or just plain sweet tooths but when you create a blind test I've found that most non brewers or inexperienced drinkers like the sweeter beer, so using them in the taste test can throw the results off
_________________
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
Drinking Celebration Ipa, Ozarks-Festbier
What's Fermenting - Ozarks Amber Bock
What's next or Brewing - Ozarks Vienna Lager
Back to top
mjo2125



Joined: 27 Feb 2017
Posts: 149
Location: Dayton, OH

Drinking: Cognac Vanilla Porter, Irish Red Ale, Belgian Pale Ale


PostLink    Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ozarks, interesting observation- i did not know that. However, the prime objective of this triangle test is to determine if there is a discernable sensory (taste) difference between the beers - good or bad. the choice of which beer someone likes is of secondary importance for this particular test. it is assumed that if someone perceives one of the beers as sweeter, then that person will select that beer as the odd one - which is perfectly fine for our objective. it is conceivable that a judge dislikes all three samples equally which is fine as well - perhaps that particular judge doesn't like lagers as much as ales. That judge's observation is still valid. Since the results could be applied to the approximately 54 million beer drinkers in the US ( with an appropriate margin of error) it may actually be beneficial to have inexperienced beer drinkers in the mix. Hope this clarifies the objective.

Last edited by mjo2125 on Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:51 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
mjo2125



Joined: 27 Feb 2017
Posts: 149
Location: Dayton, OH

Drinking: Cognac Vanilla Porter, Irish Red Ale, Belgian Pale Ale


PostLink    Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ozarks, your point is so well taken that I’m thinking about removing the second question (favorite beer selection) from the survey form so as not to confuse the judges...
Back to top
mjo2125



Joined: 27 Feb 2017
Posts: 149
Location: Dayton, OH

Drinking: Cognac Vanilla Porter, Irish Red Ale, Belgian Pale Ale


PostLink    Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attached is a revised sample form - selection for favorite beer removed to avoid confusion and conflict with the overall objective of the test.


test form.pptx
 Description:

Download
 Filename:  test form.pptx
 Filesize:  40.57 KB
 Downloaded:  3 Time(s)

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Printer-friendly view    TheElectricBrewery.com Forum Index -> Brewing Techniques All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Support our site by purchasing through this link. We thank you!

Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group