How Do You Aerate?
- Thread starter GHBWNY
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
clairecunn83
Well-Known Member
I use an immersion blender! Works like a charm, lots of foam, easy to use, cheap (if you want it to be - or get a nice one), and also a GREAT kitchen tool to have around.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006JXXBZ8/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006JXXBZ8/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20
Last edited by a moderator:
Clonefan94
Senior Member
I recently invested in the Williams brewing O2 wand as well. I have brewed a couple of beers using it that I had previously brewed using the splash and whip method to aerate. So far, I don't notice an improvement in the beer, personally, I thought my beer was pretty good to beging with. What I do notice is the strain on my arms being reduced and that helps me out after a long brew day. I was probably not that far off because I used to pour through a strainer and then wisk the crap out of it for quite a while.
For me it was well worth the $60 just to make my brew day go easier. I'm definitely not sold that it's something you have to do to make "good" beer. I do think pure O2 is more for the brewers who are looking for consistent results though. If the day was too cold or too hot, I know I didn't take the time I should have whisking the wort. Especially hot days as I was always worried about dropping some sweat in there.
I'm always looking for ways to streamline my process and this was just kind of a no brainer to me. It doesn't sound like much, but every minute counts and the O2 wand is probably saving me 10 or 15 minutes. And since I'm starting to have a few elbow issues, the physical labor savings is very welcomed.
For me it was well worth the $60 just to make my brew day go easier. I'm definitely not sold that it's something you have to do to make "good" beer. I do think pure O2 is more for the brewers who are looking for consistent results though. If the day was too cold or too hot, I know I didn't take the time I should have whisking the wort. Especially hot days as I was always worried about dropping some sweat in there.
I'm always looking for ways to streamline my process and this was just kind of a no brainer to me. It doesn't sound like much, but every minute counts and the O2 wand is probably saving me 10 or 15 minutes. And since I'm starting to have a few elbow issues, the physical labor savings is very welcomed.
OP
OP
GHBWNY
Well-Known Member
Thanks for that response.
It's true that my ferm temp typically varies by a degree or two off recommended temp over the course of a 2-3 week ferm period simply because I don't have the means to control it well. Which is probably because I have not understood the critical importance of that until recently and taken the steps to rectify it. My yeast are probably a little confused.
While I realize oxygen injection VS. manual agitation may be more an issue of preference than result (as many have stated by doing both with no perceptible difference), I covet the thought of ease-of-use and consistency of an OI system. That said, on my next brew, I'll do a more vigorous aeration just for the sake of having done it (correctly) before investing, if I do at all.
fartinmartin
Well-Known Member
How odd.
I simply let it splash into the FV , never had a problem, or reason for aeration gear. I see it as unnecessary for five gallon brews, but acknowledge that some guys like their toys.
I simply let it splash into the FV , never had a problem, or reason for aeration gear. I see it as unnecessary for five gallon brews, but acknowledge that some guys like their toys.
I read somewhere that after 45 seconds of shaking you'v got all the oxygen your going to get in there (with shaking). So I have been shaking for about one minute, pitching my yeast, and calling it a day. I haven't had problems with fermentation starting or under attenuation or anything (that I'm aware of, still a rookie).
Does infusing with pure O2 taste better? Is it a healthier fermentation that has a noticeable taste difference?
beergolf
Well-Known Member
Is it a huge difference? To the point that you say "Wow" Not really, but every thing you can do to improve your brews is worth it IMO. I have made some good beers without oxygen. But every thing that I have added to my process has made small improvements. Taking control of fermentation temps was the biggest improvement. Second was making good healthy starter of the proper size made another small notch up in brew quality. The step of adding pure O2 was a small improvement, but in combination with everything else they all add up to much better brews.
If your goal is to make beer that is drinkable you can get by without O2, however if you want to make the best beer you can it gets downto attention to details. My goal is to make best beer I can.
Here is another quote from the "Yeast" book.
I would like to see the method that the authors of the yeast book used to decided that you cannot get a high concentration of dissolved O2 without an O2 tank. There is plenty of scientific research out there that shows O2 aeration efficiencies of greater than 70% using only physical means of aeration (paddle wheels, stepped falls, etc.). I'll have to find their book to see what their experimental setup was, but I am just a naturally skeptical person and this claim doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
jpcourtney
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2013
- Messages
- 121
- Reaction score
- 14
I have an O2 kit with a stone for bigger beers, but for anything under 1.070 I use venture style using tubing and a plastic t-fitting. I have about 6 inches of tubing on the BK ball valve, the t-fitting and then another eight inches or so of tubing. This all runs thru a stainless steel sieve into the FV. There is a constant 2-3 inches of foam on top of the liquid throughout the process.
sky4meplease
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 575
- Reaction score
- 140
Taken from White and Zainasheff's Yeast book for yeast that had undergone multiple generation fermentations at a dissolved oxygen level of 5ppm (1/2 of what is recommended).
"By the fifth generation, the fermentation displayed a significant increase in lag time, an increase in the time to complete fermentation, and a higher terminal gravity than earlier-generation fermentations".
Maybe worth consideration if your reusing yeast.
"By the fifth generation, the fermentation displayed a significant increase in lag time, an increase in the time to complete fermentation, and a higher terminal gravity than earlier-generation fermentations".
Maybe worth consideration if your reusing yeast.
My understanding (which could be incorrect) was that due to the relatively low percentage of oxygen in the air (compared to nitrogen) there was an upper limit to dissolved OXYGEN, not dissolved air. You could put all the air you want in and not pass that certain theshold, and it's only oxygen that we're concerned with.
beergolf
Well-Known Member
You just made the point I was going to make. You may get dissolved air but not enough dissolved O2.
Oxygen is only 20% of the air around us.
Yes, in all of my previous posts I was specifically discussing dissolved O2, not dissolved air. You are correct that there is an upper limit to how much O2 can be dissolved in water. It is actually a very well-studied topic beyond brewing due to the fact that aquatic life depends on dissolved O2 for survival. If you go lower than a certain threshold, then the fish will die. You can see how this is a big deal for fish farms.
To support abundant fish population, the linked cite recommends >9 PPM of dissolved O2. As I said earlier, many commercial fish farms use agitation apparatus such as paddles to get O2 into their ponds, and they wouldn't be doing this if it couldn't achieve the recommended level of aeration to support abundant fish population.
http://www.water-research.net/index.php/dissovled-oxygen-in-water
Also, as I stated earlier, there are established research articles discussing how one can go from 0% to >60% saturation of O2 by simply sending water down a series of small steps.
These are the reasons, along with the fact that numerous people have stated that their beers attenuate fully with only physical agitation of the wort, I am quite skeptical of the information that is being posted about how inefficient agitating the wort is in regards to O2 saturation.
I'm not going to criticize anyone for using an O2 stone. It makes perfect sense for streamlining the brewing process and for saving some people the trouble of agitating the wort. But, at the same time, I don't trust that you can't do just as well by physical agitation of the wort.
OP
OP
GHBWNY
Well-Known Member
In a 2009 article in Brew Mag, Jon Sitka says the following:
"If your wort will be fermented in a bucket or other vessel with a wide open top, a stainless steel whisk borrowed from the kitchen can be sanitized and used to whip the wort until it has at least a couple inches (several centimeters) of foam on top."
Is this to say that if, by whatever method I choose --- shaking, stirring, pouring, OI-ing, whisking, whatever --- I need to be creating a significant layer of froth? Or does it vary with the aeration method? What is the cheapest/easiest way to measure ppm O2?
"If your wort will be fermented in a bucket or other vessel with a wide open top, a stainless steel whisk borrowed from the kitchen can be sanitized and used to whip the wort until it has at least a couple inches (several centimeters) of foam on top."
Is this to say that if, by whatever method I choose --- shaking, stirring, pouring, OI-ing, whisking, whatever --- I need to be creating a significant layer of froth? Or does it vary with the aeration method? What is the cheapest/easiest way to measure ppm O2?
Natdavis777
Well-Known Member
While this article is more focused on how much o2 is dissolved in wort from a venturi aerator, the second to last paragraph shows that one can achieve almost 8ppm oxygen using only atmospheric air. Granted, the experiment is scaled down to a mason jar, its still plausable to achieve the same results in a 5 gal batch, albeit more physical labor.
http://braukaiser.com/blog/blog/2010/12/27/wort-aeration-with-a-perforated-pipe/
http://braukaiser.com/blog/blog/2010/12/27/wort-aeration-with-a-perforated-pipe/
sky4meplease
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 575
- Reaction score
- 140
I am building an aeration system for my wort utilizing the bottled oxygen sold at local hardware stores.
After reading the label it is obvious this is not meant for human consumption however, my setup won't be any different than that sold at brewer supply warehouses which advertise them being designed for use with those disposable oxygen tanks.
Can anyone shed some light on whether or not this should be a concern?
After reading the label it is obvious this is not meant for human consumption however, my setup won't be any different than that sold at brewer supply warehouses which advertise them being designed for use with those disposable oxygen tanks.
Can anyone shed some light on whether or not this should be a concern?
I aerate by siphoning the wort from my brew kettle to the bucket through a strainer for about 3/4 of it; then just dump in the last 1/4 through the strainer. All the while I am siphoning I will have an aquarium pump going with a diffusion stone, and I'll let that keep running while I finish my cleaning up and putting everything away. That will usually take 20-30 minutes, so once that is done I pull the stone out and pitch the yeast and call it a day; if it is a big beer I'll come back in 12-18 hours and run the pump and diffusion stone for another 30 minutes or so.
A similar discussion was started the other day on this thread. I think the general feeling is that the alcohol will kill you before any contaminates do.
I already had the aquarium pump and stone and I was researching O2 and came across the BBR aeration experiment(this thread discusses too https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f13/aeration-basic-brewing-radio-75573/ )
I'm not advocating one way or another, but I decided shaking was the most cost effective vs results for me.
I'm not advocating one way or another, but I decided shaking was the most cost effective vs results for me.
thejuanald
Well-Known Member
I had a question. Aeration usually is done to provide an environment that is suitable for the yeast to reproduce before moving on to fermentation. If doing a starter to get the numbers high enough, why would it be necessary to aerate using pure O2? That seems like complete overkill. Mixing through shaking or using something like a whisk seems like it would be more than enough.
TheHappyHopper
Well-Known Member
I think most people use either a stir plate or (myself included), just shake the starter several times throughout the process to get more oxygen into the starter wort. I haven't heard of pumping pure O2 into a starter solution.
My method for aerating that I have used on my last few beers is a little different. I have been doing 5 gallon partial mashes since I don't currently have the capacity to do a full boil. When I add my top off water, I use the spray setting on my kitchen faucet - I get crazy amounts of foam forming on the wort. So far I have always seen signs of fermentation within 24 hours and achieve the FGs that I am expecting.
In the distant future I plan on stepping it up to larger batches - when that day comes I could see the benefit of doing pure O2, just to make the process easier and more consistent.
This has been discussed before. It's possible to pitch enough yeast that you don't have to aerate (and some fringe folks do advocate doing so). However the growth creates intermediary compunds that are important for flavor, and especially in a yeast-forward beer like a Belgian you're going to destroy the ester character that way. Even a lager can taste dull if you go to extremes.
The way i see it, with all the extensive research that has been done into pitching rates and aeration in the last half century, i doubt there's a better route than what is already recommended.
Also i bought my O2 system yesterday. Taking it for a spin next weekend.
Therein lies the problem. I don't doubt that I can get an adequate amount of O2 into solution just with agitation. But it takes a LOT of agitation and I don't like the idea of shaking up a big glass carboy with 40 lbs. of liquid inside. Aerating with pure O2 makes the operation faster, simpler, and with much less heavy lifting.
Natdavis777
Well-Known Member
Completely agree. Work smart not hard
fartinmartin
Well-Known Member
Or don't work at all !
I reckon you guys are agents or reps for the oxy gear .
I reckon you guys are agents or reps for the oxy gear .
I used to use one of the red O2 welding canisters from Lowes w/ an oxygenation stone. I've just acquired a larger O2 cylinder w/ a regulator. I'll adopt my system to use this.
Nobody has mentioned the olive oil trick? Yes, I'm trolling, but it's still an interesting concept 
OP
OP
GHBWNY
Well-Known Member
Question: which size stone is best for aerating/oxygenation of wort --- .2 micron or .5 micron? If I'm not mistaken, the general consensus seems to be .2 for oxygenating pre-ferm wort, and .5 for carbing your beer. NB's Oxygenation Kit for aerating wort comes with a .5 micron stone, which seems to go against the consensus. Enlighten me, please.
Nobody has mentioned the olive oil trick? Yes, I'm trolling, but it's still an interesting concept
Interesting from a scientific perspective, absolutely.
My understanding (again, could be wrong here) was that the precise dosing needed made it more or less unfeasible at the homebrew scale.
I use the 2 micron stone, as I had problems with the .5 micron stone's smaller pores clogging easily. Had that not been a problem, I think the .5 would be more efficient, as a greater number of smaller bubbles would provide more surface area between the O2 and liquid.
Natdavis777
Well-Known Member
Honestly you dont need the stone to carb the beer... A PSI of 20-30 PSI (depending on style) for 24 hours on a cold keg can sufficiently carb your beer without having to modify your diptube with a stone.
sky4meplease
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 575
- Reaction score
- 140
So yesterday after spending 1/2 the day driving around picking up the pieces and parts for my aeration set up so I could save ten bucks from ordering one on line, I decided to stop by the waste water treatment facility in the town where I live to talk to the tech there about dissolved oxygen in my wort.
I have visited the facility before to talk water chemistry and everyone was real friendly and accommodating. They even offered me R/O water from their system for brewing. These guys are science techy types in flannel shirts.
Anyway, as a regular test during waste water treatment they test for dissolved oxygen and offered to test my wort for the same including giving me the test jars for the samples.
So for my next brew I am going to pour my wort through the strainer into the primary fermenter (which is how I previously aerated), pull a sample, aerate for 60 seconds with O2, pull another sample and run them down to be tested.
It might be worth the trip to your local treatment facility to see if their techs are as cool as mine and get a true read on how much oxygen your getting into your wort with your methods.
I have visited the facility before to talk water chemistry and everyone was real friendly and accommodating. They even offered me R/O water from their system for brewing. These guys are science techy types in flannel shirts.
Anyway, as a regular test during waste water treatment they test for dissolved oxygen and offered to test my wort for the same including giving me the test jars for the samples.
So for my next brew I am going to pour my wort through the strainer into the primary fermenter (which is how I previously aerated), pull a sample, aerate for 60 seconds with O2, pull another sample and run them down to be tested.
It might be worth the trip to your local treatment facility to see if their techs are as cool as mine and get a true read on how much oxygen your getting into your wort with your methods.
stlbasementbrewer
Active Member
Can't wait to see the results from that. Should shed a little light in a dimly lit debate. Less opinion and more science. I love it.
Pour my cooled wort though a double-mesh stainless steel strainer into my fermenting bucket. It creates a lot of foam. Then, I also use an aquarium stone and a stainless steel diffusion stone for about 15-20 minutes. Between those two there is a ton of foam by the time I'm ready to pitch yeast.
sky4meplease
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 575
- Reaction score
- 140
I am planning a brew for the first of the week so I will post the results once available.
Bobcatbrewing42
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2014
- Messages
- 294
- Reaction score
- 53
I siphon into glass carboys or sometimes a sanke keg for fermenting. I set the carboy on a rubber mat (to prevent breakage) and agitate the carboy as it fills, then agitate again after pitching. I wrap a sponge that is wetted w Star San around the siphon tube to keep it from slipping out and to keep any airborne organisms out. Then let fresh air in a few times while agitating. The wort foams up when done enough. It is incredibly simple and foolproof. It costs nothing and works everytime.
I may try the same so please post back, looking forward to the results!
Does anyone just blow bubbles with a drinking straw? Yes I'm kidding again, but I might actually try this to see what happens. I'd be curious to see how many batches it would take before an infection takes over. Maybe it would be a good way to inoculate a lambic even.
OP
OP
GHBWNY
Well-Known Member
You might keel over before creating 2" of foam! Plus, you'd have to gargle with StarSan.
Similar threads
