Interesting German Brewing PDF

[mabrungard]

It depends on the actual chemistry of the particular water of course but I have seen hard alkaline water turn milky before it even reaches the boiling point.

I agree, AJ. I've seen the same result when I brewed with hard and alkaline tap water. I mentioned the boiling since I had seen references that recommended boiling for 15 minutes to effectively remove temp hardness. I'm assuming that they made that recommendation to make it more idiot-proof. Partial alkalinity and hardness reduction probably does occur fairly quickly.

 

[The_Bishop]

Bishop,

Control of hot side oxidation is discussed in all text outside of "homebrewing" that I have read. Because you don't want to invest a cost in equipment does not mean you should criticize a method or others research. I would think a great deal of people here are trying to make the best beer they can, not what they can with the cheapest equipment.

Yes, some styles are going to benefit more than others and some styles may have flavors that are expected to be there that are caused by oxidation.

In the end this is a discussion thread about a brewing method, not whether you can be convinced to modify your equipment to try it.

You must have missed the part where it says, "possible" and "thought." -

Fig. 4.23 Possible stages in the oxidative breakdown of the major unsaturated fatty acids during mashing... It is thought that the unsaturated trihydroxy-fatty acids...

Those two words indicate that it's a theory. Not fact.

Trust me, my investment in my brewing equipment is anything but cheap! I'm not saying, "Bah, this costs too much!" I'm saying that I didn't perceive any real difference in the finished product during my own experimentation and that for me, it doesn't warrant a change in equipment/technique. I'm not going to start fermenting in corny kegs, so a spunding valve is useless to me.

I know what this thread is about. Unfortunately, it's not an open discussion of a brewing technique. It's almost an argument with religious LODO zealots that want everyone to take what they say as gospel, and if you question them or don't follow their steps *exactly* you're making undrinkable swill. I still say there is more going on here than scrubbing oxygen when you dose the mashing liquor with SMB, and that's possibly the source of the difference in the mash. Their information is incomplete and they're drawing a lot of conclusions from incomplete data.

Daddy always warned me not to be cocksure when data is incomplete. 'Don't make so much stew from one oyster, Peewee,' he always says.

This was good advice in 1958 and it's relevant now.

What they're proposing adds time, cost and waste to an already expensive (in terms of water and power) endeavor with no concrete proof of an actual improvement. Their 'test mash' merely shows that there is a difference in mashing when you dose the water with SMB and that's all it proves without lab work. These differences may or may not translate all the way into an improved finished product, so I tried it as far as I could with my existing equipment and detected no real improvement in the finished product.

 

[jddevinn]

You must have missed the part where it says, "possible" and "thought." -

Fig. 4.23 Possible stages in the oxidative breakdown of the major unsaturated fatty acids during mashing... It is thought that the unsaturated trihydroxy-fatty acids...

Those two words indicate that it's a theory. Not fact.

You are again, looking at two images from a 850 page book.

Trust me, my investment in my brewing equipment is anything but cheap! I'm not saying, "Bah, this costs too much!" I'm saying that I didn't perceive any real difference in the finished product during my own experimentation and that for me, it doesn't warrant a change in equipment/technique. I'm not going to start fermenting in corny kegs, so a spunding valve is useless to me.

I know what this thread is about. Unfortunately, it's not an open discussion of a brewing technique. It's almost an argument with religious LODO zealots that want everyone to take what they say as gospel, and if you question them or don't follow their steps *exactly* you're making undrinkable swill. I still say there is more going on here than scrubbing oxygen when you dose the mashing liquor with SMB, and that's possibly the source of the difference in the mash. Their information is incomplete and they're drawing a lot of conclusions from incomplete data.



This was good advice in 1958 and it's relevant now.

What they're proposing adds time, cost and waste to an already expensive (in terms of water and power) endeavor with no concrete proof of an actual improvement. Their 'test mash' merely shows that there is a difference in mashing when you dose the water with SMB and that's all it proves without lab work. These differences may or may not translate all the way into an improved finished product, so I tried it as far as I could with my existing equipment and detected no real improvement in the finished product.

If you look at the test mash page on the german forum some people have done the mashes with and without the SMB as controls.

I'm not completely sold on the hot side affects but 100% on the cold side oxidation. One fact is that the method being discussed is entirely low oxygen. Fact is the kegging method you used did not follow the outlines set out and allowed above recommended O2 levels. How can you dispute the method if you haven't used it?

I've been trying to reduce the O2 in my cold side process for a while now. Food grade CO2 at 99.9% purity can have .1% air (1000 ppm) or about 30ppm O2. Therefore the CO2 itself may push the beer DO concentration above the recommended. Kunze and other literature state to that if CO2 must be force added use the purest possible. By not naturally carbonating you may have oxidized your beer to the point that the procedures that you did follow do not matter.

I'm making an ESB in the next couple days depending on my schedule. Changes to my normal process will include the hot side recommendations. Cold side as stated is beyond what I want to do right now, I'll finish fermentation in primary, dump trub, dry hop then transfer to secondary and (new to me) naturally carbonate by adding priming sugar. Is this following recommendations exactly? No. Am I going to post results. Yes. If it doesn't have the results discussed and I didn't follow the procedure am I going to call everyone dumb ****s? No.

I've wanted a DO meter for a while and have several eBay alerts set.... I've been primarily focused on packaging O2 uptake and am not sure (relatively cheap) meter "everyone" is using is right for that.

 

[Bilsch]

I'd wager that you're wrong, too. However, like you, I have no proof one way or the other whether they're using a low oxygen process prior to the boil or not. Also, I can say with 99.9% certainty that they were not using your vaunted process in the 1890's.

Again, conjecture. Your process costs money, and these are big companies that count every penny. If they're using this process, then they're doing it for shelf stability... Not flavor. So it can sit on a shelf (or ship) for a few months and retain a reasonable level of quality.

I'll take that bet. Companies like Krones, Meura, Kunzel, Schulz etc. are making an array of equipment specifically designed to limit or eliminate oxygen from the mashing process. Who are they selling these devices to?

Just because you say it three times loudly doesn't make it a good point. None of the big breweries in Germany, or anywhere else for that matter, are using much 1890's technology for brewing anymore. The Mesopotamians and Sumerians were at it quite a bit earlier. Do we still brew like they did, or have we evolved?

Ok it seems like a bit of a circular argument but.. shelf stability of what, flavor ?

Look we can batter each other about the head all day long as to whether the LoDO process is actually beneficial, however it boils down to this.. You tried it, and deemed it to be snake oil. I tried it and found it to be a revelation. And after 31 years of brewing it was one of the bigger improvements in quality I have experienced. My hope is simply that other brewers will give it a fair evaluation for themselves before being convinced the earth is flat.

 

[The_Bishop]

If it doesn't have the results discussed and I didn't follow the procedure am I going to call everyone dumb ****s?

Kindly show me where I call anyone anything in regards to this process, as opposed to when I called someone out for insulting anyone who isn't using this process by insinuating their beer sucks?

 

[The_Bishop]

My hope is simply that other brewers will give it a fair evaluation for themselves before being convinced the earth is flat.

See? THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. The nose-in-the-air, we're-right-and-you're-all-wrong attitude.

Try to wrap your head around a simple concept: This is not a 'world round'/'world flat' concept. It's not a 'we're right' and 'you're wrong' discussion.

It's supposed to be a discussion about the possible benefits of low dissolved oxygen prior to the boil. But it's hard to hold a rational discussion with a bunch of arrogant @$%^%@ who insist that everyone who isn't on board with their idea is inherently wrong and makes bad beer.

I simply stated that I tried the LODO approach to the extent of the equipment I have on hand. I didn't see a worthwhile improvement in the finished beer that makes the added time and energy expenditure useful. I was immediately told I did it wrong because I deviated from the 'bible' of LODO brewing.

I did a little backtracking, and re-discovered something amusing. Brewfun had actually approached a real live german brewer by the name of Burghard Meyer who, while not completely disagreeing, stated that the precautions you folks are advocating are overkill. He also pointed out that the SMB may be contributing sodium that's altering the mash flavor. He also pointed out that the elimination of copper (etc) is relatively pointless because it's naturally occurring in malt.

His contribution was immediately shot down because he's some nobody that doesn't work at Augustiner. After all, he's only from Research and Teaching Institute in Berlin (VLB), what could he possibly know?

That's sarcasm, in case you didn't pick it up.

 

[Bilsch]

See? THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. The nose-in-the-air, we're-right-and-you're-all-wrong attitude.

Try to wrap your head around a simple concept: This is not a 'world round'/'world flat' concept. It's not a 'we're right' and 'you're wrong' discussion.

Why do you insist in making this confrontational? I have never taken the nose in the air attitude with you or anyone else.
I never felt any of this was about who is better. Its simply about sharing experience and knowledge with fellow brewers. I've seen the before and after of LoDO and it's simply amazing. That's my experience with it and opinion of it and what I am trying to convey.

And on whether it actually works or not, we will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. None of this is worth getting all riled up about.

 

[The_Bishop]

Why do you insist in making this confrontational? I have never taken the nose in the air attitude with you or anyone else.
I never felt any of this was about who is better. Its simply about sharing experience and knowledge with fellow brewers. I've seen the before and after of LoDO and it's simply amazing. That's my experience with it and opinion of it and what I am trying to convey.

And on whether it actually works or not, we will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. None of this is worth getting all riled up about.

Seriously? Are you delusional?

Read this again, and *you* tell me how it comes across:

My hope is simply that other brewers will give it a fair evaluation for themselves before being convinced the earth is flat.

Your statement implies that anyone who disagrees with you is dead wrong. It carries a pomp and attitude that stifles any chance for rational discourse.

Some of your fellow LODO disciples have implicitly stated that anyone not employing your LODO technique is making bad beer. The company you keep and all...

And, yet again, none of you LODO folks want to touch the fact that Burghard Mayer has disagreed with some of your conclusions and questions the usefulness of the extent of the push for LODO in the mash.

 

[Bilsch]

My goal here is simply that people try this and see for themselves.
What is your objective?

 

[brewmeister13]

Can we just get this thing back on topic and stop bickering like my children? 5 pages of useful information has been diluted and spread across 20+ pages.

 

[doug293cz]

My goal here is simply that people try this and see for themselves.
What is your objective?

For many of us, it would require significant investment to implement LoDO processes, even for the test mash. And, many of us feel the evidence so far does not warrant investment, either money or time. We have told you the kind of evidence that would be more convincing, but you choose to ignore that, and keep saying to try it. Not gonna happen.

Brew on

 

[BrunDog]

Seriously Bishop... Let it go already. You made your points and are stuck on the hamster wheel, filling pages of posts with the same repetitive statements. Nobody is requiring you to do this, so go make beer you like and be happy. I did not get any of the arrogance you keep claiming the LODO group displayed, so I honestly think your war is one-sided.

For the record, the paper was very specific about their methods and results, and stated from the beginning that there was no real gray zone - the DO had to be below a certain critical level, and the method is the most practical way to achieve it for the homebrewer. You can't do some of it, then claim the rest of it is crap or the technique failed because you are unwilling to include it or buy the requisite hardware.

Regarding the evidence... The LODO fans do not owe you anything. Try it if you want, don't if you don't. Many people on this forum offer ideas and advice, but none of them are obligated to scientifically prove the merit of those ideas. That's the point of an community of hobbyists. Caveat emptor.

I have no horse in this race... But I am curious and do want to learn more about Brew science. Please let's get back to that.

 

[Blue-Frog]

Its good to go forward, but in fairness, I did feel a hint of religious fire in the discussion which makes me suspect the "belivers"; The simple truth is attention to detail makes better beer! Few here would say "The more O2 the Better" So lets go forward.

 

[dsniegocki]

Food grade CO2 at 99.9% purity can have .1% air (1000 ppm) or about 30ppm O2. Therefore the CO2 itself may push the beer DO concentration above the recommended. Kunze and other literature state to that if CO2 must be force added use the purest possible. By not naturally carbonating you may have oxidized your beer to the point that the procedures that you did follow do not matter.

Force carbonation aside, if this is the case, how might dispensing the beer be handled? A half-empty keg has quite a bit of headspace filled with CO2, I would think this would even more of a culprit than the force carbonation.

 

[The_Bishop]

As I said before, I'm open to new ideas. I'm all for advancing knowledge in any way, shape or form.

However, you cannot open up with: "This will make the best beer ever! All other beer will suck in comparison!" and not expect a little skepticism, especially when you're making very bold claims with little to no evidence to back it up. When you propose a new idea, the burden of proof is definitely on you. You cannot make a claim and state, "Trust me, it works!" and expect that no one will question it.

I'm not fighting a war. I'm saying that their claims are grandiose with little to back them up. When I tried their suggestions as far as my equipment would carry them and didn't get the results they claim I was told that I 'did it wrong' because I didn't ferment in a corny keg with a spunding valve, and I dry hopped the beer. It's very hard to ferment 5.5 gallons of wort in a 5 gallon corny keg, and making a hoppy beer without dry hopping is impossible. I fermented in a carboy, dryhopped near the end of fermentation, cold crashed under CO2 and fined with gelatin (including pre-boiling the water for the gelatin and dosing it with SMB). I purged the keg by filling it to the very top with a sanitizer/SMB solution that they suggested and pushing it out with CO2. I took *every* precaution I could reasonably take in regards to O2, following suggestions made by the LODO crowd. When the results of my test didn't knock my socks off with it being the best version of this beer ever (I have brewed this recipe before), I was told that I did it wrong even though I accommodated their suggestions in regard to deviations from the paper they presented and that the CO2 I was using was only 99.9% pure and as compromising the results. How do we push beer out of a keg then?

I'm not trying to be confrontational in regards to the process they propose. I'm merely asking for some evidence that it actually produces a better beer, not a difference in the mashing process. My experimentation showed it did not, in this case.

I did take umbrage with the fact that some of the LODO crowd explicitly said (several times) that anyone not brewing in accordance with their 'bible' was making bad beer. There are a hell of a lot of talented brewers here that make fantastic beer without $400 D.O. meters or going to the extraordinary lengths to preclude O2 from the mashing process, or fermenting in kegs with spunding valves.

We can all agree that it's good practice to reasonably limit O2 exposure of the wort prior to the pitch of the yeast and post ferment. It's probably not a good idea to stir air into the mash like a blender using a stirrer on a drill, and avoiding hot side splashing or aeration takes a few common sense precautions.

I'm skeptical that the somewhat excessive precautions they're advocating will produce a better beer. I tried their suggestions to see for myself, and didn't get the results they're claiming. It's possible that in a very small subset of beers their process might be beneficial, but without testing and experimentation it's strictly a theory.

There have been several claims that larger breweries in Germany use this LODO process. I'm not saying they don't, but I'll wager they're not using SMB and pre-boiling the brewing liquor. They have degassing equipment that doesn't alter the mineral composition of the water. I've done some cursory research on the concept, and haven't found much aside from the references made in the paper presented. There are several references in the paper I find questionable, such as steam purging brewing plumbing to reduce/eliminate oxygen (The steam may initially do so, but when it condenses it will create a vacuum that will draw in atmospheric air) and mashing under a 'blanket' of inert gas (gasses do not behave that way, diffusion will rapidly mix all gasses in the headspace.)

My postulation is that this is a big-brewery process to make a more shelf-stable product for a limited subset of beers, and not necessarily something that needs to be emulated on a home brewing level. You must keep in mind that Helles (and other delicate beers) will show off flavors as if there's a spotlight pointed at them, and on a commercial production level they need a product that will keep for months in sub-optimal storage conditions. This commercial low dissolved oxygen process facilitates those conditions and is not necessarily a process that home brewers (or even small craft breweries with high turnover rates) need to adhere by. In fact, Krone's (cited several times in the paper) craft beer systems employ none of these low dissolved oxygen techniques.

I think the original posters of the paper may have misconstrued some of the concepts they've read about, a sentiment echoed by Burghard Meyer of the Research and Teaching Institute in Berlin according to Brewfun.

With this, I've voiced my dissenting opinion and I'm done unless anyone has any questions. I'll return to brewing my horribly oxidized beer.

 

[rabeb25]

Force carbonation aside, if this is the case, how might dispensing the beer be handled? A half-empty keg has quite a bit of headspace filled with CO2, I would think this would even more of a culprit than the force carbonation.

Yup its absolutely a concern.

 

[dsniegocki]

Yup its absolutely a concern.

How might the dispensing of the beer be handled, then?

 

[rabeb25]

Thats why we chose the spunding method. You get pure co2, and if using food grade or higher co2, you should still fall under the .15 guideline, and its NOT possible if you force carb and dispense(even with a proper purge and vaccum of a keg). Of course this was all measured and tested with our DO meters.

 

[thedon986]

Thats why we chose the spunding method. You get pure co2, and if using food grade or higher co2, you should still fall under the .15 guideline, and its NOT possible if you force carb and dispense(even with a proper purge and vaccum of a keg). Of course this was all measured and tested with our DO meters.

But that does not answer the question of dispensing the beer after natural carbonation. It has to be pushed with CO2, which stated can and probably does have 30ppm O2, which will dissolve in the beer will it not?

 

[dsniegocki]

Thats why we chose the spunding method. You get pure co2, and if using food grade or higher co2, you should still fall under the .15 guideline, and its NOT possible if you force carb and dispense. Of course this was all measured and tested with our DO meters.

I understand the concept of spunding to naturally carbonate at the very end of fermentation, but what I don't understand is how the naturally produced CO2 also generates enough pressure to dispense 5 gallons of beer.

 

[rabeb25]

Correct, I did answer but now that I read it, I will repost it more clear.

"Thats why we chose the spunding method. You get pure co2, and if using food grade or higher co2(to dispense), you should still fall under the .15 guideline That is NOT possible if you force carb and dispense(even with a proper purge and vaccum of a keg). Of course this was all measured and tested with our DO meters.

 

[thedon986]

Correct, I did answer but now that I read it, I will repost it more clear.

"Thats why we chose the spunding method. You get pure co2, and if using food grade or higher co2(to dispense), you should still fall under the .15 guideline That is NOT possible if you force carb and dispense(even with a proper purge and vaccum of a keg). Of course this was all measured and tested with our DO meters.

I still don't understand. You are under 30ppm after natural carbonation but once you hook up the CO2 (30ppm) to dispense, how do the dissolved gases not come to equilibrium? Are you saying that the CO2 in the headspace (30ppm) will not dissolve into the beer and the beer will somehow remain under .15ppm?

 

[rabeb25]

You still have sulfur, fermentation related sulfites and some yeast in the beer to scrub oxygen. We had played with a small addition of SMB at kegging up to 6mg/l, as we found that was a dosage that Narziss recommended at bottling. It seemed to work well, but some people were able to pick up too much sulfite and sulfur, so we omitted it.. but its very valid. That's why we chose bavarian yeast strains that are heavy sulfur producers, personally I use 838.

 

[jddevinn]

I still don't understand. You are under 30ppm after natural carbonation but once you hook up the CO2 (30ppm) to dispense, how do the dissolved gases not come to equilibrium? Are you saying that the CO2 in the headspace (30ppm) will not dissolve into the beer and the beer will somehow remain under .15ppm?

Once fully carbed the co2 in the headspace will not dissolve into the beer as the beer is already saturated at the pressure and temperature.

 

[Bilsch]

I think the purity of the CO2 is less of a concern these days since most of the supplies, at least in the west and midwest come as by products of ethanol manufacture and are of a higher quality. Check with your local bulk supplier but usually they only bring in one grade that is used for all purposes such as welding, food and beverage, industrial uses etc. and typically is 99.99%. They do list O as a contaminant but that is total of the contaminants and the oxygen in there is not all O2 but most as trace amounts of SO2, CO, NO2, H2O, N2O ect. which probably won't harm your beer. Especially in small amounts like pushing a keg that was naturally carbonated.

 

[doug293cz]

Once fully carbed the co2 in the headspace will not dissolve into the beer as the beer is already saturated at the pressure and temperature.

Actually, at equilibrium the CO2 in the beer will diffuse out of the beer at the same rate that CO2 in the headspace diffuses into the beer. Equilibrium doesn't mean there is no exchange of gas between the headspace and beer, just that there is no NET mass transfer between the beer and headspace.

Also, the equilibria of CO2 and O2 are independent of each other, and each depends on the amount dissolved in the beer vs. the partial pressure of each in the headspace. If you put gas in the headspace (while dispensing) that has an O2 partial pressure higher than the partial pressure that would be in equilibrium with the DO level in the beer, then more O2 will dissolve in the beer. @rabeb25 's point is that if the initial DO level in the beer is low enough, dispensing with 30 ppm O2 in the CO2 won't result in enough additional O2 absorption to raise the DO level above a critical level. I would like to see how the calculations on that were done, as there are a lot of potential errors that can be made, starting with an invalid system model.

Brew on

 

[thedon986]

Once fully carbed the co2 in the headspace will not dissolve into the beer as the beer is already saturated at the pressure and temperature.

But CO2 and O2 are distinct gases. I understand the keg should be naturally carbonated to storing/serving pressure, but that doesn't explain exactly why the O2 (up to 30ppm) will not dissolve into the beer and become equilibrium with the CO2 cylinder 02 content but will somehow remain at .15ppm.

 

[thedon986]

Actually, at equilibrium the CO2 in the beer will diffuse out of the beer at the same rate that CO2 in the headspace diffuses into the beer. Equilibrium doesn't mean there is no exchange of gas between the headspace and beer, just that there is no NET mass transfer between the beer and headspace.

Also, the equilibria of CO2 and O2 are independent of each other, and each depends on the amount dissolved in the beer vs. the partial pressure of each in the headspace. If you put gas in the headspace (while dispensing) that has an O2 partial pressure higher than the partial pressure that would be in equilibrium with the DO level in the beer, then more O2 will dissolve in the beer. @rabeb25 's point is that if the initial DO level in the beer is low enough, dispensing with 30 ppm O2 in the CO2 won't result in enough additional O2 absorption to raise the DO level above a critical level. I would like to see how the calculations on that were done, as there are a lot of potential errors that can be made, starting with an invalid system model.

Brew on

Beat me to it. Thanks.

 

[dsniegocki]

For myself (and I would guess a few other homebrewers), this (like many other brewing techniques) comes down to: Does doing "X" improve my beer enough to be worth the "X" amount of time and/or expense that the rest of my waking hours spent with my job/spouse/children/whatever to be worth it?

Leaving out the HSA for now (if for no other reason so that I can focus), I already do about all I can to eliminate oxygen during any post-ferment beer transfer. I am now tempted to carbonate via spunding/krausening. I've seen the other thread regarding this, good points made there. But if all of this goes out the window when I apply 10psi of my not-quite-pure CO2 to dispense (I've got 20+ foot lines), then what have I gained?

Which leads me to this question: Is my potential gain IMMEDIATE flavor improvement? Or, as my understanding is, cold beer takes time to be affected by these relatively low concentrations of oxygen, is this a problem that only manifests itself over time? In other words, can I solve this issue by simply DRINKING MY BEER FASTER?

I think that's what I'll try next...

 

[Joe Dragon]

A couple things seem contradictory here:

The yeast should be well mixed into the wort, and oxygen or sterile air added only after pitching, with a target DO level of approximately 8 ppm [4].

Yes, I've read the write-up completely.

After fighting the presence of oxygen during the entire process you are to add oxygen back in (yes, the yeast need it) but THIS oxygen doesn't cause oxidation? The beer (now that the yeast has been pitched) is exposed to 8 PPM of pure oxygen but is not affected?

Whereas- "Indeed, by measuring DO levels alongside each batch, we have found that it takes less than 1 minute of oxygen exposure in excess of 1 ppm to completely rob the beer of the fresh malt flavor."

So less than 1 minute at 1 PPM= bad. Several hours at 8 PPM= good?

I also fail to see how you could mash in light fluffy crushed grains and not have the oxygen enter the mash. As we "know", 1 PPM for a minute will ruin the beer.

Finally, "Originally Posted by Edelst0ff View Post. If people want to stir their mash with a drill or pour the wort from huge height, who really cares? If they like it... Then that's their beer and since I am not under any obligation to drink it, I can see no harm except when they hypothetically *shock* invite me round and expect to consume that stuff. That would indeed worry me, but thankfully the chances of this occurrence is extremely low.

This type of hubris is unattractive to say the least.

 

[UndeadFred]

Actually, I sort of agree with both sides on this. The CO2 equilibrium stuff is spot on, the ion exchange will happen even when it appears that everything is balanced. I agree that O2 is bad and needs to be minimized, but to go as far as stating the oxides on copper will add O2 to the beer? How about the oxides of Chromium on Stainless or Aluminum Oxides? (They are tougher? hmm not to acids..)

As an engineer, even I'm calling BS on that.

I know many of the members of the German Brewing group on Facebook and I'm a member, and I'm not really questioning if it would help to reduce O2 especially in Helles. I've been an oddball for awhile in that I like to prime my kegs because I perceive the beer to carbonate better, taste better, have better head retention, etc. And maybe that's because even when just priming, O2 is taken out...

But for me to ever get to the full suggested LoDo system stated is beyond the amount of money I want to or can spend on the system. I'm not converting over to a 3V system without actual scientific proof, and I would guess many people out there feel the same way as I do.

But if, for example, a spunding valve is 50% of the difference, we can document that and suggest that as a major improvement.

I'm switching my recirc to a submerged whirlpool arm on the next brew and I'll minimize splashing, but I still will BIAB because I like doing it that way. To get this to go for an experiment, you guessed it I fabricated it out of copper tubing I had lying around.

What is not helpful is stating to throw all of your stuff out and follow a process with about a dozen and a half variables added based on it working for someone else, with no real independent confirmation.

What would be helpful is to make a list of improvements to standard processes as a "bucket list" so we can do this over time.

I more or less asked this pages ago and no one could let me know what I should knock off first. I believe it is because you really don't know. You need to know if you want to make this more main stream. If you have dissolved O2 meters, then really you should have someone measure one variable at a time and determine bang for the buck.

It very well may be that 30 ppm is the magic number for Helles, but I'd bet a stout would be much more tolerant to O2... but maybe not 300 PPM tolerant. It would be good to know if we could get to, say 50 PPM with simple changes.. even if you don't believe that's enough.

I'm still interested and following, but for wide spread acceptance, more data is really needed. It is really needed. Really.

 

[rabeb25]

Actually, at equilibrium the CO2 in the beer will diffuse out of the beer at the same rate that CO2 in the headspace diffuses into the beer. Equilibrium doesn't mean there is no exchange of gas between the headspace and beer, just that there is no NET mass transfer between the beer and headspace.

Also, the equilibria of CO2 and O2 are independent of each other, and each depends on the amount dissolved in the beer vs. the partial pressure of each in the headspace. If you put gas in the headspace (while dispensing) that has an O2 partial pressure higher than the partial pressure that would be in equilibrium with the DO level in the beer, then more O2 will dissolve in the beer. @rabeb25 's point is that if the initial DO level in the beer is low enough, dispensing with 30 ppm O2 in the CO2 won't result in enough additional O2 absorption to raise the DO level above a critical level. I would like to see how the calculations on that were done, as there are a lot of potential errors that can be made, starting with an invalid system model.

Brew on

Apparently you skimmed past this......
"You still have sulfur, fermentation related sulfites and some yeast in the beer to scrub oxygen. We had played with a small addition of SMB at kegging up to 6mg/l, as we found that was a dosage that Narziss recommended at bottling. It seemed to work well, but some people were able to pick up too much sulfite and sulfur, so we omitted it.. but its very valid. That's why we chose bavarian yeast strains that are heavy sulfur producers, personally I use 838."

 

[Iseneye]

Actually, I sort of agree with both sides on this. The CO2 equilibrium stuff is spot on, the ion exchange will happen even when it appears that everything is balanced. I agree that O2 is bad and needs to be minimized, but to go as far as stating the oxides on copper will add O2 to the beer? How about the oxides of Chromium on Stainless or Aluminum Oxides? (They are tougher? hmm not to acids..)

As an engineer, even I'm calling BS on that.

My only knowledge from this comes from my reading of the German brewing forum. The issue is that copper creates super oxidants (or whatever the correct term is). I guess the other thing to consider is that the guys aren't coming up with this stuff themselves (which they note). The comments seem to be on these guys unproven claims but they are basing it off respected German brewing literature.

It very well may be that 30 ppm is the magic number for Helles, but I'd bet a stout would be much more tolerant to O2... but maybe not 300 PPM tolerant. It would be good to know if we could get to, say 50 PPM with simple changes.. even if you don't believe that's enough.

I'm still interested and following, but for wide spread acceptance, more data is really needed. It is really needed. Really.

Where does the 50 / 300ppm come from? The LODO guys reference <0.15ppm as a requirement in the finished beer. Considering we're only oxygenating to 8ppm in the wort I don't know how you would even get 02 that high. I may have missed something.

 

[TheHairyHop]

A couple things seem contradictory here:

The yeast should be well mixed into the wort, and oxygen or sterile air added only after pitching, with a target DO level of approximately 8 ppm [4].

Yes, I've read the write-up completely.

After fighting the presence of oxygen during the entire process you are to add oxygen back in (yes, the yeast need it) but THIS oxygen doesn't cause oxidation? The beer (now that the yeast has been pitched) is exposed to 8 PPM of pure oxygen but is not affected?

Whereas- "Indeed, by measuring DO levels alongside each batch, we have found that it takes less than 1 minute of oxygen exposure in excess of 1 ppm to completely rob the beer of the fresh malt flavor."

So less than 1 minute at 1 PPM= bad. Several hours at 8 PPM= good?

I do not claim to be versed at all (you may have read more than me), but I believe that I have the answer. when the wort is at pitching temps, the rate of oxidation is equal to or lower than the oxygen uptake of the yeast. when things are hot, that is when oxidation can happen before you know it

 

[doug293cz]

Actually, at equilibrium the CO2 in the beer will diffuse out of the beer at the same rate that CO2 in the headspace diffuses into the beer. Equilibrium doesn't mean there is no exchange of gas between the headspace and beer, just that there is no NET mass transfer between the beer and headspace.

Also, the equilibria of CO2 and O2 are independent of each other, and each depends on the amount dissolved in the beer vs. the partial pressure of each in the headspace. If you put gas in the headspace (while dispensing) that has an O2 partial pressure higher than the partial pressure that would be in equilibrium with the DO level in the beer, then more O2 will dissolve in the beer. @rabeb25 's point is that if the initial DO level in the beer is low enough, dispensing with 30 ppm O2 in the CO2 won't result in enough additional O2 absorption to raise the DO level above a critical level. I would like to see how the calculations on that were done, as there are a lot of potential errors that can be made, starting with an invalid system model.

Brew on

Apparently you skimmed past this......
"You still have sulfur, fermentation related sulfites and some yeast in the beer to scrub oxygen. We had played with a small addition of SMB at kegging up to 6mg/l, as we found that was a dosage that Narziss recommended at bottling. It seemed to work well, but some people were able to pick up too much sulfite and sulfur, so we omitted it.. but its very valid. That's why we chose bavarian yeast strains that are heavy sulfur producers, personally I use 838."

I fail to see how your response (and previous post) invalidates, or even relates to what I said. Can you elaborate?

If there is something in the beer that will consume DO, thus lowering DO, the headspace O2 partial pressure and changed DO level will still tend towards equilibrium. If there is excess (w.r.t. equilibrium) O2 in the headspace, then more O2 will dissolve in the beer.

Brew on

 

[dsniegocki]

Apparently you skimmed past this......
"You still have sulfur, fermentation related sulfites and some yeast in the beer to scrub oxygen. We had played with a small addition of SMB at kegging up to 6mg/l, as we found that was a dosage that Narziss recommended at bottling. It seemed to work well, but some people were able to pick up too much sulfite and sulfur, so we omitted it.. but its very valid. That's why we chose bavarian yeast strains that are heavy sulfur producers, personally I use 838."

So... at what point do the yeast stop doing their work here? My understanding is that yeast will stop "working" for a number of reasons (no more fermentable sugars, temperature drop, they die, OSHA break, whatever), and although I know that they use O2 to do their work, I didn't imagine that they would "stop" and remain dormant until more O2 was present to scrub. I guess I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this idea that a keg, several weeks into drinking, may be at that point 50% or 75% full of commercial CO2, and the oxygen can be munched up by the residual yeast in the remaining beer (and mitigated by the sulfur?)... but somehow the amount of commercial CO2 used to force carbonate is too much to handle?

 

[stpug]

This is how I've been affected by the pdf from the german site:

I read it and thought, "what a bunch of bullsh!t". Then I reread it and started to envision how I could try this myself. I implemented what was easy with what I already have and what was cheap to get. Turns out I was able to implement the majority of the hotside steps with no additional purchases. A few process adjustments; an added chemical to weigh out; an oxygen barrier to put on the mash. So far, it has cost me $8 and has added a maximum of 15 minutes to my brewday, but that may also just be the warm summer groundwater taking extra cooling time. Where I stand now is that I'm not that far off from the full hotside recommendations of the pdf and with very little effort - just some thought, process changes, and willingness to experiment (which I'm always willing to do with my hobby). I figure the coldside should be easy - gravity measurements, rack to keg with few points left, and spunding valve. The only additional cost here will be spunding apparatus, but there are ways around this as well (known FFT and racking at correct gravity reading = no spunding necessary).

Have I implemented everything in the pdf? No. Have I brewed batches with as many changes as I can currently muster? Yes. Have I seen vast improvements in the end product? Nothing vast yet, but it's still great beer. Am I withholding judgement on the low oxygen brewing method until I can honestly say I've done everything they've listed is necessary? You betcha!

In some ways, my brewday has become easier because I mess with the mash much less, which is a benefit to my stirring elbow too

 

[TheHairyHop]

This is how I've been affected by the pdf from the german site:

I read it and thought, "what a bunch of bullsh!t". Then I reread it and started to envision how I could try this myself. I implemented what was easy with what I already have and what was cheap to get. Turns out I was able to implement the majority of the hotside steps with no additional purchases. A few process adjustments; an added chemical to weigh out; an oxygen barrier to put on the mash. So far, it has cost me $8 and has added a maximum of 15 minutes to my brewday, but that may also just be the warm summer groundwater taking extra cooling time. Where I stand now is that I'm not that far off from the full hotside recommendations of the pdf and with very little effort - just some thought, process changes, and willingness to experiment (which I'm always willing to do with my hobby). I figure the coldside should be easy - gravity measurements, rack to keg with few points left, and spunding valve. The only additional cost here will be spunding apparatus, but there are ways around this as well (known FFT and racking at correct gravity reading = no spunding necessary).

Have I implemented everything in the pdf? No. Have I brewed batches with as many changes as I can currently muster? Yes. Have I seen vast improvements in the end product? Nothing vast yet, but it's still great beer. Am I withholding judgement on the low oxygen brewing method until I can honestly say I've done everything they've listed is necessary? You betcha!

In some ways, my brewday has become easier because I mess with the mash much less, which is a benefit to my stirring elbow too

the process changes are the opposite for me! I just picked up a bunch of cold side equipment for lowering oxygen in order to make my IPAs better. of course, my PPMs probably won't be what these guys are aiming for, but I'm working my way to there.

since you stir(red) your mash, I'm assuming you don't use a pump. therefore, how are you agitating your mash in order to prevent clumps and such?

 

[TexasWine]

This is how I've been affected by the pdf from the german site:

I read it and thought, "what a bunch of bullsh!t". Then I reread it and started to envision how I could try this myself. I implemented what was easy with what I already have and what was cheap to get. Turns out I was able to implement the majority of the hotside steps with no additional purchases. A few process adjustments; an added chemical to weigh out; an oxygen barrier to put on the mash. So far, it has cost me $8 and has added a maximum of 15 minutes to my brewday, but that may also just be the warm summer groundwater taking extra cooling time. Where I stand now is that I'm not that far off from the full hotside recommendations of the pdf and with very little effort - just some thought, process changes, and willingness to experiment (which I'm always willing to do with my hobby). I figure the coldside should be easy - gravity measurements, rack to keg with few points left, and spunding valve. The only additional cost here will be spunding apparatus, but there are ways around this as well (known FFT and racking at correct gravity reading = no spunding necessary).

Have I implemented everything in the pdf? No. Have I brewed batches with as many changes as I can currently muster? Yes. Have I seen vast improvements in the end product? Nothing vast yet, but it's still great beer. Am I withholding judgement on the low oxygen brewing method until I can honestly say I've done everything they've listed is necessary? You betcha!

In some ways, my brewday has become easier because I mess with the mash much less, which is a benefit to my stirring elbow too

I've come to a similar conclusion. Very minimal cost to my set up and no extra time. First brew I used an old lid as a mash cap, already had a spunding valve laying around from a previous experiment, so I just needed to buy a few fittings for that and to connect my CO2 to a rubber stopper to push the beer out of my fermenter to the keg. Already had the NaMeta from wine making.

Since then I've bought a 14" diameter stainless steel cake pan to use as a mash cap. I'll use an extra bulk head I have laying around for the wort return. Next time I'll also use my stainless immersion chiller as a pre chiller to my plate chiller. So I need to buy a few fittings for that too. Cheap stuff really.

So, no major purchases for me.

Oh, and I BIAB. I was just really careful with my grains.

 

[TheHairyHop]

I've only gotten to page 21 (I'll catch up) but can it basically be said that this methodology doesn't really work with hop stands? (at least, without some serious equipment)