Kegconnection Complete Starter Kit and More Giveaway!


Home Brew Forums > Home Brewing Beer > Fermentation & Yeast > I completely underestimated role of oxygen

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-23-2011, 10:18 PM   #101
jfowler1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 506
Liked 31 Times on 25 Posts
Likes Given: 3

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nfazz View Post
Well I guess I didn't realize that the opinion of the original poster was gospel. You're kind of proving my point here. All you guys have to support the use of O2 aeration is anecdotal evidence.
No, you are proving my point here.

My word does not have to be gospel. I just ask that your honor my opinion. Those are two different things. If I said, "I just pee'd in my beer, and it was better than ever before!" I think you would have much stronger stance to take (and you would have less people arguing against you). But no, I said, "I finally followed a fundamental piece of advice and instruction from Jamil, White Labs, and Wyeast and my beer was better than ever before!" Honestly, you kind of sound like a crazy person telling me I am out of line or unjustified with my findings. Questioning what you are told is great, but at some point, you have to stop arguing about it and try things out yourself. For now, you are just arguing about it. You claim my finding are "anecdotal", but at least they are my findings. You are just arguing an unfounded opinion. Who is peddling gospel there? My "anecdotal evidence" is that I actually followed an instruction that I never followed before, and by my analysis, the result improved as the instructions said it would. Is that really something worth questioning? I mean, there is crazy garbage all over this board that you would be better served arguing about.

What are you trying to argue?

Do yeast need oxygen? Did I supply it as instructed? Did the yeast seem to make a better beer? The answers are all very simple - yes. I mean, I brewed 24 lesser batches "without". That's why I decided to post "anecdotal evidence" for the first batch I brewed "with". To me, it was good enough. Ever hear the phrase, "The proof is in the pudding?"

Can we throw out all the garbage about evidence? I home brew, and if I am going to spend 6 hours making a batch of beer, I want it to be the best beer I can make. It's a hobby - I am not looking to publish my findings, I just want to brew and drink a beer, and if I had to choose between it tasting good or bad, I choose good. I think there are a lot of brewers who are just as happy to hear that someone found a way to improve beer quality, and wouldn't demand a panel of experts to back up a finding. However, if literature and experts didn't already exist to explain the potential benefits of appropriate O2 levels in beer, I would have never tried it. But the literature exists. To that effect, I already have a panel of experts that can back up my findings. I am not inventing anything new here. I changed my process as suggested, and the beer was better than ever before. For my next trick, I'll bend spoons with my mind. Why do I need to set up a triple blind experiment to say that without argument? I am just supporting advice that was already given by industry experts. If you can't find that advice documented earlier in this thread, I suggest checking you prescription.

Listen, experiment until you heart is content. I have a funny feeling that after all the time and dollars, your finding may just happen to fall in line with what White Labs, Wyeast, (and I) found.

Joe
__________________
jfowler1 is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-23-2011, 11:56 PM   #102
emjay
HBT_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
emjay's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 12,694
Liked 1711 Times on 1600 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nfazz View Post
Maybe you need to look again. I don't own this probe, but most of the probes measure ppm of O2 in solution which can then easily be converted to percent saturation if you know the temperature and atmospheric pressure. If you can achieve say 8 ppm O2 in solution using room air or pure O2, the oxygen concentration is the SAME in both solutions. The saturation is just another way of expressing the oxygen concentration. Hope this helps.
Yes, the probe measures ppm. ppm = parts PER million (denoting concentration.)

Can you easily convert it to percent saturation if you know the temperature and atmospheric pressure? Kind of... but gases aren't all equally soluble, and so according to Henry's Law, you also need to know "Henry's Constant" for the particular gas solute in the particular solvent you're working with (in this case, oxygen in water), which is a bit of a misleading name since it obviously changes depending on the gas and liquid. Thing is though, the only way to find Henry's Constant (other than looking it up, in which case it's really just somebody else who did it for you) is to empirically find it by determining the concentration of the dissolved gas when it's saturated at a given temperature. And they just set that particular concentration of dissolved oxygen to be 100% in order to compare their experimental results in some meaningful way.

The thing is, when you dissolve air, you are dissolving ALL the gases that are in air, not just oxygen. The wort doesn't magically decide to hang on to the oxygen alone, just because it's good for it - do you honestly think other gases are NOT being dissolved? Because if not, that must mean you're instead working on the assumption that a solvent has the capacity for an INFINITE amount of solute, as long as you change the particular solute to a different one once it's saturated - ie, after reaching the saturation point of oxygen, you can then saturate the wort with nitrogen, and then CO2, argon, helium, etc, without causing any of the previous gases to come out of solution - and if that's what you actually think, then you might as well just stop reading this right now; that level of ignorance is incurable.

No, the fact is, a solvent only has a given amount of room. For instance, let's say you're working with a wort temperature and pressure where the saturation point for oxygen alone is 20ppm, and the saturation point of nitrogen is 48ppm (roughly close to accurate), and it's just been boiled so there are absolutely no gases dissolved yet. That doesn't mean you can dissolve 20ppm of oxygen AND 48ppm of nitrogen at the same time. You'd only be able to dissolve the entire 20ppm of oxygen if there is NO nitrogen whatsoever (which I'm sure everyone is well aware is not even close to the reality of ambient air), just like you'd only be able to dissolve the 48ppm of nitrogen if you decided not to include any oxygen. Or you could do a 50-50 mix (10ppm oxygen, 24ppm nitrogen), a 75-25 mix (15ppm oxygen, 12ppm nitrogen), a 25-75 mix (5ppm oxygen, 36ppm nitrogen), or any other combination imaginable.

So, tying back in to the first paragraph as to what gas(es) they used to determine 100% saturation, they did it using AIR, and the saturation point of AIR is where dissolving any more AIR is absolutely impossible. At that point where water becomes saturated with air, the concentration of oxygen is still measurable and should be around 8ppm at fermentation temps. There will also be an unknown amount of nitrogen, CO2, and other atmospheric gases, since they were neither measured nor calculated. But to suggest that these other gases aren't there simply because they weren't measured (since the particular concentrations don't matter for this experiment) is absolutely silly.

However, since these other gases ARE there, taking up a huge proportion of the total dissolved gases that this particular solvent can accommodate, the oxygen is limited to a concentration much lower than it could attain if the other gases were never introduced into the water in the first place - in fact, in typical circumstances it should only be roughly 20.946% - a mere one-fifth - of the concentration it would be present in if the other gases weren't taking up their fair share (I say "roughly" because the proportion would be slightly changed by the fact that CO2 isn't just a solute but also somewhat reacts with water to form carbonic acid). And so the question becomes, how do you kick all the other gas molecules out, giving oxygen the space to increase in concentration nearly 5-fold? The simple answer, of course, is just to not introduce them in the first place, by using pure oxygen as the solute instead of that mixture of gases we call air.

Need a source for all that? There's actually very little to even source, it's basically a couple of concepts distilled as much as (and in every way) possible, so that one would have to be a troll to keep insisting otherwise, but I suggest you try a high school science/chemistry textbook. I'm not even kidding, I know it's there because I checked - I kept a lot of my old science textbooks since I like hanging on to knowledge and information. I doubt you're going to find much of this (proving, or even arguing against it) in any academic papers because that particular audience is pretty much expected to know such fundamental stuff, not to mention that stuff such as the fact that a solution can contain more of a specific solute when it is the only solute (ie pure oxygen) as opposed to one of many competing solutes (ie air) is pretty much common sense to anyone with even the slightest idea of how solutions work.

Now admittedly, the author doesn't say either way whether the 100% saturation comparator was using the concentration of oxygen in water 100% saturated with air, or 100% saturated with oxygen. But for the reasons stated above - even ignoring the fact that they experimented strictly with methods attempting to saturate the water with air, and not pure O2 - it is just totally impossible for the O2 in water that is mixed with AIR (containing just 21% oxygen) to reach a concentration equal to 95% of the concentration of the oxygen in water saturated entirely with pure O2. That would actually imply that the other 79% of the gas content of air is somehow diminished to a maximum of 9.1% of total dissolved gases (since nitrogen is about twice as soluble), and that's absolutely absurd. In fact, it even goes on to talk about the risk of yeast toxicity by over-oxygenating when using pure O2, and you'd have to be bizarrely bull-headed to think that when they refer to over-oxygenation, they must be talking about that small margin between the 95% they achieved, and the limit of 100%.

However, if you decide to stick to your nonsensical version of chemistry, that's fine with me. I was far more concerned about the people who might be influenced by your posts to not pursue the quality that they otherwise might have. But I think I've posted more than enough to ensure that the vast majority of open-minded people who might read this thread will know that your claims are bunk, and that they don't even jibe whatsoever with the link you posted thinking it supported those claims. I can't believe I just wasted time writing all this though, because the vast increase in O2 concentrations possible when using pure O2 instead of air is not even close to being a typical point of contention, and because the science behind it is so elementary, it never even has been.
__________________
emjay is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-24-2011, 02:17 AM   #103
Saccharomyces
Be good to your yeast...
HBT_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Saccharomyces's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Pflugerville, Texas
Posts: 5,443
Liked 78 Times on 52 Posts
Likes Given: 2

Default

You don't need pure O2 if you use an aquarium pump. Aerate, pitch, wait an hour for the yeast to take up the oxygen, and re-aerate. I know brewers who use this method with great success.

__________________
[How to Calculate Mash Efficiency | Do I Need a Yeast Starter? | My Ghetto Fermentation Chamber | Twitter | 6 Gal. HDPE Fermenters | Slanting Yeast | No Sparge Brewing]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soperbrew
big brother only monitors facebook and untappd
Saccharomyces is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-24-2011, 02:20 AM   #104
nfazz
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 8
Default

Wow, it's obvious that I'm wasting my time here. Google parts per million. It's pretty simple, if you have 8 ppm of a given solute, there are 8 parts per million OF THAT SOLUTE in solution. It doesn't matter what the concentration of the other solutes is. The probe measures the concentration of OXYGEN. PERIOD. Not the concentration of CO2 or nitrogen or whatever you think its measuring. If I can get 8 ppm oxygen in solution by whatever method, it's the same concentration as 8 ppm with another method! What part of this do you not understand? It's this kind of ignorance that drives people away who are legitimately trying to answer a question.

My point here is that I think the effect of O2 aeration on homebrew is not well known. It looks like some decent experiments have been done, but I think the homebrew community would benefit from further experimentation. Someone with time, skills, and resources needs to do an experiment and the results of that experiment will advance the entire community. I would LOVE for O2 aeration to make my beer better. But I'm not going to just blindly do it without knowing the effects. Most of you don't care, and that's fine. Others (the minority, most likely) are ignorant or misinformed. Probably many are in the same boat as me and would like to see someone do the experiment. I am going to go ahead with these experiments on my own and I don't think I'll be sharing the results on this forum, although I do plan to share them. A real community would encourage this kind of contribution, not attack the person attempting to answer a question. I'm not going to come on here and brag about my credentials, but I have more degrees and have done more research than the rest of the people on this board, I assure you. I didn't come here to be insulted by a bunch of pompous asses, I came here to see what has already been done, and it looks like White Labs has done some very good work on the subject. I appreciate GuldTuborg's post in particular. I plan to pick up the yeast book to learn more about their experiments, but I don't think the issue has been laid to rest.

Have fun everyone and good luck!

__________________
nfazz is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-24-2011, 02:44 AM   #105
emjay
HBT_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
emjay's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 12,694
Liked 1711 Times on 1600 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nfazz
Wow, it's obvious that I'm wasting my time here. Google parts per million. It's pretty simple, if you have 8 ppm of a given solute, there are 8 parts per million OF THAT SOLUTE in solution. It doesn't matter what the concentration of the other solutes is. The probe measures the concentration of OXYGEN. PERIOD. Not the concentration of CO2 or nitrogen or whatever you think its measuring. If I can get 8 ppm oxygen in solution by whatever method, it's the same concentration as 8 ppm with another method! What part of this do you not understand?
I read this far, and decided it wasn't even worth going further. Why? Because you're actually technically right, yet totally irrelevant and apparently forget your previous claims. Namely, why bother with O2 when shaking gets you 95% of the way there. I pointed out that the 95% was by a different benchmark, and that in terms of actual dissolved O2, it's less than 20% than a pure O2 system is capable. You disagree with some sort of nonsense, and so my last post simply demonstrated how this was true. And then you respond with... whatever the hell this is supposed to be. Backtracking? Sidetracking? You're certainly not defending your initial position!

Bottom line, if you can achieve 8ppm at the 95% saturation mentioned in that paper, you should be able to get around 40ppm with an oxygen system... if at any point you understood that, you were and are being disingenuous. And if you still don't get it, then you're just hopeless...

Goodnight
__________________
emjay is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-24-2011, 03:23 AM   #106
jfowler1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 506
Liked 31 Times on 25 Posts
Likes Given: 3

Default

nfazz,

Thanks for your input.

Honestly, I think there may be a bit of miscommunication here. Maybe we need to take another step back.

I started the thread because I changed one variable (the best a homebrewer can do to change 1 variable) in my brewday and saw a big improvement. I referred to it as a Eureka! moment. I asked if anyone else had such an experience. For me, it was oxygen. Some agreed. Other people mentioned things like decoction mashing. Cool. A Eureka! moment is just an awakening - kind of an eye opening step that you couldn't believe you were not taking earlier. Literally; "I found it!" ("it" being a key to a better beer).

Now, as discussions go, the thread evolved into a talk about improvements that others also saw when they used O2 for the first time. Naturally, someone will chime into that talk and say, "well I used an air pump and it works great", or "I have been happy to splash things around like Charlie Papazian taught me!" And those contributions are fine too. It encourages good debate.

But then someone just completely disagrees with the tone and -hit hits the fan.

That is kind of where you came in. You were not the first one to say "I disagree!", you just kind of did it in a way a little more offensive than anyone else. Can't put my finger on it....

When I reread your posts, I feel kind of bad. I mean, you have a fine idea; you want to run an experiment. I am all for it. I think that your findings, whatever they turn out to be, will be very useful to everyone.

On the other hand, personally, I think it is kind of bad taste to join a thread, basically tell the OP he was unjustified in standing behind his "anecdotal" analysis, and then go on to call all the members a bunch of asses. If you want to do some experiments, fine. But by arguing, and repeatedly writing off my statements as [fruitless] "anecdotes", you are falling somewhere between calling me a liar and calling me an idiot. I am neither. You say you felt insulted - well, so did I. And a little advice; you can't say you are not going to "come here and brag about credentials", and in the same sentence, start bragging about your credentials (kind of hurts your point).

So lets step in the way back machine.

jfowler1 - I had great results with oxygen!
nfazz - Great to hear Joe. It looks like lots of other people had great success with that step too! I have heard lots of options for aeration, and I am going to do an experiment with different methods and share my findings with you guys!
HBT community - Thanks nfazz! That is going to be really helpful!

Isn't that nicer.

So if you want to go from there and try again, awesome. If you want to experiment and take your findings elsewhere, that is fine too.

Joe

__________________
jfowler1 is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-24-2011, 05:08 AM   #107
BrewThruYou
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ambler
Posts: 1,686
Liked 35 Times on 32 Posts
Likes Given: 16

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nfazz View Post
You cite a wyeast page that says that you can achieve higher concentrations of O2 with a tank, and maybe that's true but where's the proof? It's a nice couple of paragraphs on a website with no experimental evidence to back it up.
The proof is in the book and the experiments that were presented in it. We're not trying to trick you. It's like $12 on Amazon. I'm not quoting pages of a book just to prove to you that we're not fabricating these experiments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nfazz View Post
No one here seems to have done any experiments. I'm talking about the kind of controlled experiment with serial O2 measurements using multiple methods of wort aeration on a split batch of wort. .
Do it yourself if you want it done. It's been presented in a book that you apparently think is made up...I trust the research.
__________________
BrewThruYou is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-24-2011, 05:50 AM   #108
GuldTuborg
HBT_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
 
GuldTuborg's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: OH
Posts: 3,365
Liked 418 Times on 302 Posts
Likes Given: 232

Default

While this thread has some good advice and discussion in it, it also seems to have some miscommunication. I hope we can all continue to have a spirited discussion without resorting to name calling.

I hope it's been made obvious that a greater O2 concentration can be had in wort by using pure oxygen and a stone than by any kind of method that uses air. The question becomes, of course, how much at what times during fermentation (thanks to Saccharomyces for raising the issue of time) has what effect(s)? Some people have observed some changes in their beer quality, and it's those kinds of experiences that are worth sharing. Keep coming with them, but know that questions will be raised regarding other possible causes, etc., and that is a healthy part of looking critically at the matter (so long as it's done in a civil manner). If anyone is willing to do some brewing with special attention to holding other variables constant, while changing oxygenation levels, and report that back, I think we would all benefit from that kind of work.

I hope I haven't stated anything contentious in the above paragraph. At any rate, it all seems reasonable enough to me. Maybe we can use it as a staring point to beginning this discussion anew?

__________________

Don't worry, be hoppy.

GuldTuborg is online now
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-24-2011, 06:10 AM   #109
emjay
HBT_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
emjay's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 12,694
Liked 1711 Times on 1600 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuldTuborg
While this thread has some good advice and discussion in it, it also seems to have some miscommunication. I hope we can all continue to have a spirited discussion without resorting to name calling.

I hope it's been made obvious that a greater O2 concentration can be had in wort by using pure oxygen and a stone than by any kind of method that uses air. The question becomes, of course, how much at what times during fermentation (thanks to Saccharomyces for raising the issue of time) has what effect(s)? Some people have observed some changes in their beer quality, and it's those kinds of experiences that are worth sharing. Keep coming with them, but know that questions will be raised regarding other possible causes, etc., and that is a healthy part of looking critically at the matter (so long as it's done in a civil manner). If anyone is willing to do some brewing with special attention to holding other variables constant, while changing oxygenation levels, and report that back, I think we would all benefit from that kind of work.

I hope I haven't stated anything contentious in the above paragraph. At any rate, it all seems reasonable enough to me. Maybe we can use it as a staring point to beginning this discussion anew?
Chris White explains that the only time you should be oxygenating is before pitching, except in the case of extremely high-gravity beers. In these particular exceptions, I believe he states that another dose of oxygen may be given 12-18 hours after pitching, though I admittedly don't recall his precise reason(s) why. I should be able to check my copy of Yeast tomorrow and both confirm and elaborate on this particular guideline.
__________________
emjay is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-24-2011, 06:18 AM   #110
BrewKnurd
Formerly discnjh
HBT_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BrewKnurd's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Prairieville, LA
Posts: 2,750
Liked 238 Times on 197 Posts
Likes Given: 112

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nfazz
I'm not going to come on here and brag about my credentials, but I have more degrees and have done more research than the rest of the people on this board, I assure you.
Without making any comments on the validity of anyone's arguments here... This is possibly the most contradictory single sentence I've read here.
__________________

Fake it til you make it.

BrewKnurd is online now
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply


Quick Reply
Message:
Options
Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can I ferment completely closed in corny keg under pressure? redalert Fermentation & Yeast 71 02-16-2013 11:21 PM
Ran out of Oxygen dmfa200 Fermentation & Yeast 6 06-28-2012 10:13 PM
Using bottled oxygen sketerbuck Fermentation & Yeast 4 03-08-2011 12:23 PM
Starters - Don't allow to ferment completely? gannawdm Fermentation & Yeast 5 01-19-2011 01:11 AM
Too much oxygen acleanthous Fermentation & Yeast 7 05-18-2010 06:42 PM