Hot Side LODO - What am I missing?

[Live42]

I've been reading up on LODO to try to improve the quality of my IPAs. Reducing DO on the cold side, post fermentation makes perfect sense. Got it. But, I have a seemingly obvious question that I have not seen answered anywhere: Why do you care about DO on the hot side? How does oxygenating the wort at yeast pitching not completely negate any benefits gained from previous LODO hot side processes?

If the goal is to intentionally oxygenate the wort to 8-12 ppm after pitching the yeast, why do we care about reducing it to <.5 ppm during mash, lauter and boil? Given this 20 - 50x increase in DO levels at yeast pitching, how is anything prior to that not a moot point? Even if the oxidation happens 20 - 50x slower at fermentation temperature than at a boil, it has much more time to occur. We're talking a 60 minute boil, vs days in primary before the yeast completely consumes the oxygen. So, what am I missing?

 

[mredge73]

Welcome!

Hot side aeration is taken seriously by pros but doesn't seem to have a huge impact at the homebrew level.
The idea is that o2 binds to some chemicals while at mash temp and then releases this o2 some time later when it has cooled down. This o2 then affects perceived "freshness".
We inject many times more o2 into our beers unintentionally through transfers or bottling that this should be fairly low on the list of oxidation sources to be afraid of.
That doesn't mean you should intentionally splash the crap out of your mash tun; just don't worry so much about it if you cannot help it.


Experiments you can read up on:
http://brulosophy.com/2014/11/18/is-hot-side-aeration-fact-or-fiction-exbeeriment-results/
http://brulosophy.com/2016/12/26/ho...uating-the-impact-of-age-exbeeriment-results/

 

[Big Monk]

Why do you care about DO on the hot side?

We make an educated assumption that says there is a phenolic malt compound that is responsible for the "lingering fresh" malt flavors that we desire. They are unfortunately some of the first things that become oxidized on the hot side when the mash is exposed to > 1 ppm DO.

How does oxygenating the wort at yeast pitching not completely negate any benefits gained from previous LODO hot side processes?

The reaction times are much slower at pitching temps, meaning that it takes longer (what happens in minutes at mash temperatures occurs over the course of hours at pitching temps) for oxidative damage to occur at lower temperatures.

If the goal is to intentionally oxygenate the wort to 8-12 ppm after pitching the yeast, why do we care about reducing it to <.5 ppm during mash, lauter and boil?

We care because we want to preserve the fresh malt flavors that come from the previously mentioned phenolic malt compound.

.......days in primary before the yeast completely consumes the oxygen.

This might be your disconnect. If you pitch active yeast, they will consume nearly all of the oxygen introduced in short order, much quicker than oxidation can take place at pitching temps.

Given this 20 - 50x increase in DO levels at yeast pitching...

The "drop dead" value for hot side ppm is 1, so it's really 8-12 times at pitching but I get what you are saying.

 

[Live42]

Thanks guys, that's great information. For my last few batches of NEIPA, I've been bottling straight from primary, and I've had mixed results. The last one was pretty good, but there were definitely a few bottles that were better than others. That inconsistency lead me to believe there was something up with my bottling process, so I'm moving to kegs. Plus, bottling is a total PITA

The batch I have fermenting now will be my first kegged batch. I didn't brew it with LODO hot side processes, but I will use all closed transfers, and a balloon full of CO2 during cold crashing to prevent O2 suck back. We'll see how that does and go from there.

 

[day_trippr]

[...]Hot side aeration is taken seriously by pros but doesn't seem to have a huge impact at the homebrew level.[...]

Actually, HSA can have a huge impact on home brewed beer...

Cheers!

 

[MSK_Chess]

I suppose this belongs in hot side and may be of some concern. I remember die beerery mentioning this but I cannot locate it. It has to do with starch gelatinization temps and European malts. I found this in an article i was reading about decoction mashing.

On the other hand, the starch gelatinization temperature is now as high as 149°F (65 Celsius) (In European malts) and has therefore already passed the optimal temperature of the beta-amylase. If you go for a rising infusion with 144°F (62C Celsius) and 162°F (72 Celsius) rests (very common in Germany), you will have highly active beta-amylase during the first rest, but the starch grains won’t be solubilized fully. During the second rest, the starch will be liquefied, but the beta-amylase won’t be active anymore. Surprisingly poor attenuation might be the result with 2016 malt.

Ok what does this actually mean? It appears to me to be saying and please correct me if I am wrong that because of the high temperatures of starch gelatinization in European malts 149°F/65C!! when we mash using a common mash schedule like a Hochkurz mash (144°F/62C for 30 min maltose rest and 162°F/72C for a roughly 30 min dextrinization rest) the starch may not be fully gelatinized and when we reach the higher temp and the beta is denatured the result in the long term is poor attenuation (a less dry beer)

Can anyone comment on his? Have I understood it correctly? What is the solution if we have a high gelatinization temp like in 2016? and where to find these technical specifications?

 

[Die_Beerery]

Thats correct, thats why I use a multi step beta rest.

dough in at 131
144-20
147-10
153-5
162-30
170-10

Jumping in at 144-5 and using the standard Hochkurz you are missing a bunch. Using your malt sheets you can gauge gelatinization pretty close.

http://www.********************/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/pddvxvf.pdf

 

[MSK_Chess]

Thats correct, thats why I use a multi step beta rest.

dough in at 131
144-20
147-10
153-5
162-30
170-10

Jumping in at 144-5 and using the standard Hochkurz you are missing a bunch. Using your malt sheets you can gauge gelatinization pretty close.

http://www.********************/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/pddvxvf.pdf

ok cheers, will have a read at the article again.

 

[friarsmith]

I'm a full-on LODO convert. To make a long story short, since I went LODO in mid-2017, my beers taste better quicker, and taste better/fresher longer.

I kept it pretty simple-- for my last 19 brews (15 lagers, 4 ales), on all brews I used yeast scavenging for all mash/sparge water and underletting. That's it, except for the lagers, where I added NaMBS to all mash/sparge water to 15ppm. I understand there are recommendations for 30ppm for mash water, but I erred on the conservative side since I treat all my liquor beforehand in bulk, including yeast scavenging. This roughly equates to two NaMBS tablets in 10 gal of liquor for a 5 gal batch. Simple.

Generally speaking, you have to factor in an equivalent ppm in Sulfate for ppm NaMBS across all brewing liquor, so back off of the Gypsum and Epsom a bit when you start adding NaMBS. I made a few minerally beers before I figured this out (thanks Martin).

There's a difference between brewing fads and fact. I'm convinced LODO techniques fall into the latter...

 

[ba-brewer]

I'm a full-on LODO convert. To make a long story short, since I went LODO in mid-2017, my beers taste better quicker, and taste better/fresher longer.

I kept it pretty simple-- for my last 19 brews (15 lagers, 4 ales), on all brews I used yeast scavenging for all mash/sparge water and underletting. That's it, except for the lagers, where I added NaMBS to all mash/sparge water to 15ppm. I understand there are recommendations for 30ppm for mash water, but I erred on the conservative side since I treat all my liquor beforehand in bulk, including yeast scavenging. This roughly equates to two NaMBS tablets in 10 gal of liquor for a 5 gal batch. Simple.

Generally speaking, you have to factor in an equivalent ppm in Sulfate for ppm NaMBS across all brewing liquor, so back off of the Gypsum and Epsom a bit when you start adding NaMBS. I made a few minerally beers before I figured this out (thanks Martin).

There's a difference between brewing fads and fact. I'm convinced LODO techniques fall into the latter...

So for the 4 ales you just did the yeast de-oxygenation without adding NaMBS?
Did you use the 2xbatch size in grams for the yeast and sugar? If I do my mash and sparge water separately would I use 1x in each?
Did you use a mash cap?

 

[friarsmith]

Correct: No NaMBS. Concerned about sulfur production with the warm ale yeast. Yes, use 1x if you separate mash and sparge liquor.

I haven’t yet done a mash cap because most of my beers involve a decoction with lots of stirring late on, so I figure a mash cap is not going to help. Banking on the NaMBS to scavenge dissolved O2 in the mash

 

[ba-brewer]

thanks. Good to hear a sub set of the LODO procedure produces good results.

 

[Big Monk]

Correct: No NaMBS. Concerned about sulfur production with the warm ale yeast. Yes, use 1x if you separate mash and sparge liquor.

I haven’t yet done a mash cap because most of my beers involve a decoction with lots of stirring late on, so I figure a mash cap is not going to help. Banking on the NaMBS to scavenge dissolved O2 in the mash

You shouldn’t have any issues adding metabisulfite to your ales.

Just curious: why the decoction and not just a simple hochkurz mash?

Good to hear you are seeing results.

 

[Iseneye]

I've added metabilsufite to heaps of ales and no sulphur issues as long as I oxygenate prior to pitching which gets rid of excess sulfites.

 

[friarsmith]

I usually do a hochkurz with 30-40 min rests at 148 and 158 with a single decoction to ramp to Mashout. I think it gives a crisp, dare I say ‘professional’ finish to Pale lagers. Works great for German Pils and Munich Helles’es’es

I’ll try some NaMBS in my next Ale. I was cautioned by another experienced brewer who had some sulfur issues. I was really happy with the ales using only yeast scavenging and underletting though.

 

[Iseneye]

I usually do a hochkurz with 30-40 min rests at 148 and 158 with a single decoction to ramp to Mashout. I think it gives a crisp, dare I say ‘professional’ finish to Pale lagers. Works great for German Pils and Munich Helles’es’es

I’ll try some NaMBS in my next Ale. I was cautioned by another experienced brewer who had some sulfur issues. I was really happy with the ales using only yeast scavenging and underletting though.

I started dosing at 100ppm as per the original document and had some issues. The document has been updated to state under 30ppm (seems most people are down to 15ppm). Have you been to the lowoxygen forum linked above? There is lots of good information over there (and no arguing over whether LODO works or not).

As a note, you wouldn't be achieving hot side LODO with decoctions and no sulfite protection (other than Die Beerery who does nitrogen flushing). I don't think anyone who is doing LODO does decoctions.

 

[Big Monk]

I usually do a hochkurz with 30-40 min rests at 148 and 158 with a single decoction to ramp to Mashout. I think it gives a crisp, dare I say ‘professional’ finish to Pale lagers. Works great for German Pils and Munich Helles’es’es

I’ll try some NaMBS in my next Ale. I was cautioned by another experienced brewer who had some sulfur issues. I was really happy with the ales using only yeast scavenging and underletting though.

You should try 145-147 for 30, 162 for 30 and 171-172 for 10-15. I have a feeling you’ll want to ditch the decoction after trying it. Also, there just really isn’t a practical way to do decoctions AND stay LO.

I think you’ll be even happier with your ales if you add some protection from Meta. 5-10 ppm should be alright if tourney system is dialed in enough for 10-15 with your lager brewing.

 

[Paulaner]

Without looking through my Kunze book for the next hour to quote this, but I remember reading in there that no noticeable difference has been noted between decoction and step mashes. As a die hard Czech Pils brewer I've given up decoction mashes for step mashes about a year ago and haven't looked back since.

 

[MSK_Chess]

Thats correct, thats why I use a multi step beta rest.

dough in at 131
144-20
147-10
153-5
162-30
170-10

Jumping in at 144-5 and using the standard Hochkurz you are missing a bunch. Using your malt sheets you can gauge gelatinization pretty close.

http://www.********************/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/pddvxvf.pdf

really, how do you get gelatinisation temps from a malt sheet. If this post is removed for being off topic can you please pm me -

 

[Paulaner]

Here's a cut and paste from another more in-depth site that explains how to figure out your gelatinization temp since it's not on the malt sheets:
"It really only takes a batch or 2 to figure it out. The majority of all the malts we use today are VERY modified, so a simple hochkurz is all you need and net you 100% conversion. If you use a simple Hochkurz and don't see 100% conversion then you alter (20-30min at 144-145).

What I do is just assume 95% conversion for the first batch of malt from a new sack. I then mash that beer at the standard Hochkurz at 30-145.

This is a middle of the road temp and time, and conversion. You will either vary a gravity point or 2 on either side.

If you hit your numbers assuming 95% do another one and lower the temp a degree or 2, did the conversion go up or down. If down, next mash raise it 2f above 144-5, did it go up or down? If up, your gelatinization temp is high and you can use the "brauwelt" mash or be happy with 95%. The goal is to get 100% conversion in as little time as possible. Of course mash thickness, crush, water, pH all play into this so there is really only one size fits all mash and that is the brauwelt, the downside is the time.. thats pretty much it." Not sure if you have the malt sheets for your malt, but here's a link to my most current batch: http://analyses.weyermann.de/t018_21113025_01.pdf

 

[MSK_Chess]

Yes I have the malt sheets but rather interestingly the Weyerman malt sheet includes this value,

Hartong Index VZ 45°C.

That is a small sample is taken, mashed at 45C and measured against a 'congress', mash. The importance of this is that there is a correlation between the VZ 45°C malt analysis number and the gelatinization temperature. What the formula is for finding the gelatinization temperature from the VZ 45°C number is I cannot say and even if i could it only works for those maltsters (mostly German) who actually cite the VZ 45°C value. On my malt sheets there is no such value. If there is a VZ 45°C value then you could probably use the comparison chart on braukasiers website to get a pretty reasonable idea of the gel temps.

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/File:VZ45_and_gelatinization.gif

 

[AMessenger]

You should try 145-147 for 30, 162 for 30 and 171-172 for 10-15. I have a feeling you’ll want to ditch the decoction after trying it. Also, there just really isn’t a practical way to do decoctions AND stay LO.

So he stated that he's a true believer in LoDO and that he is getting tangible benefit from the process. Do you doubt he is achieving the 1 ppm O2 benchmark (your "drop dead" value)? Is this confirmation bias?

How many of the claimed benefits of LoDO are confirmation bias?

 

[MSK_Chess]

So he stated that he's a true believer in LoDO and that he is getting tangible benefit from the process. Do you doubt he is achieving the 1 ppm O2 benchmark (your "drop dead" value)? Is this confirmation bias?

How many of the claimed benefits of LoDO are confirmation bias?

Oxygen is bad for beer, this fact is incontrovertible. Why should we not be taking a holistic approach to this is a question not easily answered?

 

[AMessenger]

Oxygen is bad for beer, this fact is incontrovertible. Why should we not be taking a holistic approach to this is a question not easily answered?

I applaud the work you LODO guys are doing and if I were to bet on it I would say it was likely you were on to something.

It just seems like there is a lack of any evidence based analysis behind the work being done. The claim that "this beer I just made using LODO is better than the same beer I made a month ago without LODO" has almost zero value as evidence in my opinion. This is the sort of evidence that LODO is hanging its hat on at the moment. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[MSK_Chess]

Almost all of the low oxygen brewing principles are based on the work of German brewing scientist Wolfgang Kunze. If you visit the low oxygen brewing website they are detailed there. The LODO guys are simply attempting to put those principles and ideas into practice on a home-brew level.

 

[mongoose33]

I applaud the work you LODO guys are doing and if I were to bet on it I would say it was likely you were on to something.

It just seems like there is a lack of any evidence based analysis behind the work being done. The claim that "this beer I just made using LODO is better than the same beer I made a month ago without LODO" has almost zero value as evidence in my opinion. This is the sort of evidence that LODO is hanging its hat on at the moment. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Almost all of the low oxygen brewing principles are based on the work of German brewing scientist Wolfgang Kunze. If you visit the low oxygen brewing website they are detailed there. The LODO guys are simply attempting to put those principles and ideas into practice on a home-brew level.

Confirmation bias is real, and in some cases w/r/t LODO, may be present. Further, it's possible that extra care in the process while attempting LODO techniques might be responsible for flavor improvements wrongly attributed to the LODO techniques. This is me, as a scientist, noting alternative explanations for LODO results.

************

That said, I've been trying to implement LODO techniques for about...six months now. I've tasted wort produced using LODO techniques and it's a shock--remarkably more flavorful and rich than wort produced in a high-oxygen environment. That right there was an eye-opener. Now, could that have been confirmation bias? Maybe, but I want to know if this is worth doing, and so I want THE answer, not a particular answer. If it's hokum, I want to know, and stop screwing around with process that's more involved and longer. And if the beer is significantly better (I get to decide that, with my palate), then I want to know if that's true, too.

Yet, I have had other evidence that this produces much better beer, though my consistency in producing that is still in the trial stages. I produced a beer on December 3rd, an Amber, that was the hit of Christmas Eve just 3 weeks later. *I* thought it was great, as good as any beer I've produced. What makes me think it's not confirmation bias is all the family members who also drank it, and had seconds, and thirds, and we had to get a pitcher filled because we were tired of filling single glasses from the tap. This is the part that made it not confirmation bias: three of the people drinking it never have beer at family gatherings; they drink wine. When the wine drinkers switch to drinking a beer I made using LODO techniques and they keep asking for more.....well, I interpret that a certain way.

This all is NOT easy to do, IMO. I'm still struggling w/ recipes. Brewed a California Common, and used a hop spider. Well, that kept a certain amount of bittering and flavor elements out of the beer, so the result is not as "bright" in those characteristics as I want. The hop spider is no more, btw, I've had that issue in a couple others, and would rather resolve the issues the hop spider addressed in other ways. Anyway, the CC could use more hop presence, but man....the malt backbone is impressive. It's not spot-on for the style because of the hops, but it's still really good. Really good.

*************

When I started out on this journey, I really wanted to find a couple bottles of LODO-made beer that I could use to determine if it was worth doing. I couldn't find them, of course, so I've taken much of this on faith--faith that the others saying it matters aren't imagining it, and faith in the chemistry of what O2 does.

Trust me, this is not easier. I had switched to BIAB, found that my brew days became deliciously lazy and relaxed. LODO is not that, at least not yet. Lots of moving parts, takes longer, more involved, more to clean.....

And yes, given that, perhaps the perceived benefit could be attributed to cognitive dissonance. But again, I've had others respond to the beer in very, very positive ways, and there's no reason they should be experiencing cognitive dissonance.

The journey continues. Brew day tomorrow. Going to try to refine my processes. And I will, I'm sure.

 

[MSK_Chess]

Yes its a gradual progression for sure. Latest things I have implemented are biological acidification which I would highly recommended, spunding which is also awesome, the head lasts forever, under-letting which was easy and I also attempted to purge my tun and pressure tested all my lines for leaks. Its all good.

this might get deleted by a rather zealous moderator for being allegedly off topic.

 

[Big Monk]

So he stated that he's a true believer in LoDO and that he is getting tangible benefit from the process. Do you doubt he is achieving the 1 ppm O2 benchmark (your "drop dead" value)? Is this confirmation bias?

How many of the claimed benefits of LoDO are confirmation bias?

I certainly wasn’t trying to put him down. I look at it this way:

1.) A larger percentage of his LO batches were lagers with pre-treated water AND Meta. He likely has more in depth sensory analysis on his lagers done LO than his ales. I was just suggesting an easier (infusion/direct fire step) way to get to mash out that may help minimize extra oxygen pickup and help reduce his meta dose more.

2.) Confirmation bias, or rather the accusation of confirmation bias, is a slippery slope. Some things are so nuanced that yes, there tends to be a reason or a desire to want to believe them even in the face of negligible results. I don’t think HOT side (and definitely not COLD side) LO is one of those. The difference is so profound that to me it’s very noticeable. Others have confirmed this gulf between old process and LO process with respect to malt flavor so I’m inclined to agree with @mongoose33 and his statements.

Part of the reason we favor the procedural style (the “go-do” style) of presenting this really is due to the fact that ultimately it’s a sensory thing.

Citizen science experiments so prevalent these days are a lot like eyewitness testimony: They are unreliable. They can’t possibly account for the sensory abilities of all people. Better to judge YOUR beer by whether YOU enjoy it. Then you figure out why. In our case, many of the major benefits are directly attributable to LO brewing, and because we have so many previous batches to compare to, we can say with reasonable assurance that it isn’t all in our heads.

 

[Iseneye]

I applaud the work you LODO guys are doing and if I were to bet on it I would say it was likely you were on to something.

It just seems like there is a lack of any evidence based analysis behind the work being done. The claim that "this beer I just made using LODO is better than the same beer I made a month ago without LODO" has almost zero value as evidence in my opinion. This is the sort of evidence that LODO is hanging its hat on at the moment. Correct me if I'm wrong.

This will come across as semi-snarky but are you asking the same question of every other brewing practice discussed on Homebrewtalk? There are plenty of things on here that have no evidence based analysis. There are scientific books from which this homebrew process is derived. Once you have tried this process yourself and done it properly it is clear there is a difference. I'm currently working on dual brews with my LODO system and a friends non-LODO system. We've done a hoppy beer and our next one is a Saison.

 

[Big Monk]

@Die_Beerery said it today in a way that perfectly encapsulates our present thinking (I’m paraphrasing):

If the lingering, fresh malt flavors we advocate are something of value to you, then hot side is absolutely necessary. If not, it’s not.

Cold side is absolutely necessary no matter who you are.

Ultimately, the goal is to help people achieve a goal they desire, not talk people into doing something that doesn’t matter to them. That’s why it’s less important to prevent some sweeping set of evidence “proving” our position. It’s a matter of someone’s sensory analysis of thier own beer telling them they want to pursue it.

We have no beef with anyone either way.

 

[day_trippr]

[...]The claim that "this beer I just made using LODO is better than the same beer I made a month ago without LODO" has almost zero value as evidence in my opinion.[...]

I understand that, and having nothing more to offer than my own anecdotal experience I can only suggest you give the basics a try and see where it leads you...

Cheers!

 

[Iseneye]

Cold side is absolutely necessary no matter who you are..

According to one other thread on HBT, cold side oxidation is a myth and you should feel free to splash your finished beer into your bottles with no effect on the beer. I'm paraphrasing a bit.

I was brought around to Die Beerery's way of thinking a while ago. I make beer to satisfy my own taste and nobody else (I don't enter competitions). Going LODO has improved my beers to my taste so am happy with the change. If someone doesn't want to change their process and are happy with their beers then it is no skin off my nose. Enjoy your beers but don't say there is no difference when you haven't tried it for yourself.

 

[AMessenger]

@Die_Beerery said it today in a way that perfectly encapsulates our present thinking (I’m paraphrasing):

If the lingering, fresh malt flavors we advocate are something of value to you, then hot side is absolutely necessary. If not, it’s not.

Cold side is absolutely necessary no matter who you are.

Ultimately, the goal is to help people achieve a goal they desire, not talk people into doing something that doesn’t matter to them. That’s why it’s less important to prevent some sweeping set of evidence “proving” our position. It’s a matter of someone’s sensory analysis of thier own beer telling them they want to pursue it.

We have no beef with anyone either way.

Seeing how much time and energy you guys have invested in this it would be hard to believe that confirmation bias could explain away your claims. I would bet there is some flavor difference using your method. The real question is: how significant is the impact?

Would a normal person, unaware of the technique used to make the wort, be able to detect any difference in a beer made using your methods from one that was brewed the normal way? Is the difference so subtle that you would need to have a lot of practice picking it out (as I imagine you guys have) in order to notice it?

That doesn't constitute proof, of course, but if you had data that showed that there was some significant difference I would think that would be very helpful in your efforts to promote the process. It would certainly be helpful for someone like me who is interested in the concept but uncertain that the benefits justify the extra cost.

 

[mongoose33]

Seeing how much time and energy you guys have invested in this it would be hard to believe that confirmation bias could explain away your claims. I would bet there is some flavor difference using your method. The real question is: how significant is the impact?

How would you like to measure that?

Would a normal person, unaware of the technique used to make the wort, be able to detect any difference in a beer made using your methods from one that was brewed the normal way? Is the difference so subtle that you would need to have a lot of practice picking it out (as I imagine you guys have) in order to notice it?

To me, it's not subtle, it's a richness and fullness of flavor that is superior to brewing w/o LODO techniques. That is, when I've hit on the recipe.

That doesn't constitute proof, of course, but if you had data that showed that there was some significant difference I would think that would be very helpful in your efforts to promote the process. It would certainly be helpful for someone like me who is interested in the concept but uncertain that the benefits justify the extra cost.

Yeah, having objective measures would be terrific. Problem is, people taste things differently. For example, there are hop flavors some people can't detect. I don't care for spaghetti sauce as anything made with that tastes, to me, like gruel. That's all the more perplexing as I've witnessed people eating spaghetti w/ tomato sauce and it's as if they're having a religious experience. Me? No.

I am not a super taster, but I know what I like.

When I started this I took it on a bit of faith that there would be something there. Part was as you note above, who'd do all this just for something that's nothing more than confirmation bias? Part was knowing what oxygen does.

I'm a scientist; only one way I know will give me an answer to this. That is, either compare someone else's LODO beer to the same recipe brewed non-LODO, or brew it myself and see if I can detect a difference. The former wasn't available, so the latter--try it myself--was the only option.

I think I know where you are--you want some clear evidence it's worth making the investment in equipment and the extra time involved in doing LODO brewing, before you commit. I've been there. I had the same desire.

What you might try is this: two mini-mashes, one using as many LODO techniques as you can (e.g., pre-boil the water then cool to strike temp, crush grain just before mashing in, underletting the grain, using a mash cap), and another where you do the normal thing. Get the water right. If you really want to go whole hog, use some crushed campden tablet in the LODO to scavenge the O2 that inevitably gets in.

Stir (gently) twice during the mash, such that you do not splash the LODO mash, keep covered w/ mash cap the rest of the time, make sure temps are close between the two.

Then, taste the wort at the end. Then, you can be the judge instead of hoping, as I did, that others' evaluations are correct.

*************

I brewed my Funky Rye yesterday. First time doing that recipe with LODO techniques. I tasted the wort, of course, as it went into the kettle. Wow. Flavorful and sweet. Normally, wort tastes, to me, sort of "meh." It's a sweetness that's there, but depth of flavor is shallow. Not with this.

I bought a Tilt hydrometer to help me time racking to a keg for spunding, but one thing is for sure: my patience will be tested with this one. I'm terribly anxious to get a taste of the finished product. BTW, the fermentation gases coming off the fermenter are being used to purge the receiving keg.

 

[MSK_Chess]

How would you like to measure that?

I bought a Tilt hydrometer to help me time racking to a keg for spunding, but one thing is for sure: my patience will be tested with this one. I'm terribly anxious to get a taste of the finished product. BTW, the fermentation gases coming off the fermenter are being used to purge the receiving keg.

Spunding for me personally is really tricky or rather getting the timing right is tricky for it relies on so many parameters. British yeast is notoriously fast to drop, Lager yeast not nearly as fast and will remain in suspension longer. One one occasion I had to introduce fresh yeast as one does in krausening to reach my FG. I now rely not so much on gravity but on how the beer looks, waiting till high Kraisen is over and transferring then, but not so much over that there is not enough to finish the ferment. Perhaps you will have more accuracy with your new piece of kit?

 

[beersk]

I applaud the work you LODO guys are doing and if I were to bet on it I would say it was likely you were on to something.

It just seems like there is a lack of any evidence based analysis behind the work being done. The claim that "this beer I just made using LODO is better than the same beer I made a month ago without LODO" has almost zero value as evidence in my opinion. This is the sort of evidence that LODO is hanging its hat on at the moment. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I've actually done a side-by-side on a helles. The difference is very apparent.