I completely underestimated role of oxygen

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Good to hear a report about oxygen making such a difference to your beer. But...hasn't your homebrew been generally better than what you buy in a store even without using pure oxygen? It should have been - so maybe you did something else special, too, during your last batch that contributed to a big improvement. Did you?

See, this brings a few things to mind.

First, no, the only change in the process was the addition of O2. This was something I feared a bit when I started this thread - people writing it off as a lucky batch. I am sure it is commonplace for home brewers to change a thousand processes from brew to brew, and come on here and claim, "this is the first time I did FWH and it was my best beer ever!" Was it really the FWH, or was it one of the other (literally) dozens of variables. This was not the case for me. I have been using the same yeast, mash process, volumes, brew rig, pitching rates, fermentation/wort temp control (real wort control, not a cool closet), you get the point - I can not be clearer about this; the only change was in the method of oxygenation. I can nail mash temps, and I crush my own grain so efficiency is always known. I do not have surprises on brewday or during fermentation - I just eliminate variables. I am getting bored trying to explain how repeatable my process is. Take my word for it - nothing else was done. The more I have read since starting this thread, the more the literature backs up what I am saying. Oxygen (or to a lesser degree, a boatload of aeration) needs to be a much bigger focus of brewday for all of us. I am saying this because I feel it is an important process that has been kind of ignored by the community. There are lots of methods to get the O2 into solution, but clearly, the experimentation has proved that pure O2 is second to none. So ask yourself, is your (and this is the universal "you" not the member I quoted above) method nearly as effective as oxygenation? I've actually tried both ways; have you?

And as for the other comment, about my beer not being as good as something I can buy commercially - well that is an interesting question. I did have another beer I really liked; I brewed Jamil's Evil Twin. I put it in a line-up against 4 other commercial American Ambers. I had the Stone Levitation Ale, Troegs Nugget Nectar, Troegs Hopback Amber, and Boulder Hoptical Illusion. My wife sampled blind, and said that Nugget Nectar was the top beer. However, the Evil Twin had a malt complexity that was lacking from all of the others, and it was her pick for #2. So in a blind line-up, my beer would have stacked up okay. However, if anything, this just shows how much better the beer could have been if I had been using the suggested amount of oxygen for a healthy fermentation. Maybe it would have been number 1.

The other thing worth mentioning is the fact that we can all be a little cellar blind. For example, the beer I made prior to the stout was a pale ale. I really liked it, until I tasted the stout. Now I want to dump the Pale Ale down the drain, because it pisses me off to think how much better it could have been if I treated the wort right with O2 prior to pitching. I am not going to say that every beer on the shelf at the store is better than your homebrew, but I do have to say, I think it makes you sound like a good candidate for cellar blindness if you are under the delusion that your beer is generally better than what you can buy in the store. It is simply not the case; especially if you are still under the impression that proper oxygen levels are not that important to fermentation. You may certainly enjoy drinking your homebrew more than something your bought - after all, you spent six hours making it rather than slapping $10 on the counter for a 6-pack. But from a quality control standpoint, there are very few people who have the tools to duplicate the commercial process.

I can not be the only one to talk about the improvement O2 has made. I could really use someone else with a repeatable process to buy an O2 kit, get brewing, and report back here with results. In the meantime, I will be entering my stout in 3 homebrew competitions over the next month to see if a sample of judges agrees.

Joe
 
Acoma said:
Thanks OP for posting this. This has been on my mind a lot lately and I've been considering building an O2 system for my wort so this thread seems like perfect timing. I've been putting it to the back of the list of things to do and wasn't sure how big of a difference it would make on my beer vs the old shake and bake method I've been using.
However, when looking on their website they are asking 50 bucks plus 7 for S&H and all it is is a wand, 4' of hose, a stone, and a regulator?

Seems like you could make it yourself for about half that. So far, I've been more of a DIY brewer and like to save a few bucks when possible. I'd be curious to hear from anyone who has built their own.

Where have you found a left hand o2 reg for DIY prices?
 
One thing to remember about "the commercial process" is that they are aerating HUGE volumes and need to do it as rapidly as possible. So, of course they need pure oxygen. From posts on here, 8 ppm can be achieved in 5 gallon batches with 40 seconds of vigorous agitation. 8 ppm is sufficient for most brewing purposes.

Based on HBT reading, I actually bought an O2 canister and was going to buy a kit. My LHBS does not sell them and has no plans to - for several reasons including the notion that too much oxygen is bad for yeast. And I've also noticed that some online stores also do not sell them.

I bought the O2 but I'm not sure I'll ever get the kit. Who knows... if I get bored, I might.

I have made some great beers without it. And others (blindly) agree.

BTW, aside from entering a contest with your beer, there is another easy way to see if your beers are as good as store-bought beers... similar to what you mentioned but easier... drink one of yours and right afterwards, drink your favorite similar commercial brew. Does it stand up? If you are honest with yourself, this comparison should tell you the answer.
 
One thing to remember about "the commercial process" is that they are aerating HUGE volumes and need to do it as rapidly as possible. So, of course they need pure oxygen. From posts on here, 8 ppm can be achieved in 5 gallon batches with 40 seconds of vigorous agitation. 8 ppm is sufficient for most brewing purposes.

Based on HBT reading, I actually bought an O2 canister and was going to buy a kit. My LHBS does not sell them and has no plans to - for several reasons including the notion that too much oxygen is bad for yeast. And I've also noticed that some online stores also do not sell them.

I bought the O2 but I'm not sure I'll ever get the kit. Who knows... if I get bored, I might.

I have made some great beers without it. And others (blindly) agree.

BTW, aside from entering a contest with your beer, there is another easy way to see if your beers are as good as store-bought beers... similar to what you mentioned but easier... drink one of yours and right afterwards, drink your favorite similar commercial brew. Does it stand up? If you are honest with yourself, this comparison should tell you the answer.

I appreciate your participation and input, but you are perpetuating my point - another brewer who admittedly never tried using oxygen, yet is sure it is not necessary. Am I the only one who sees something wrong there? I have no financial stake in O2 kits. I saw them as unnecessary, decided it might be worth a try, bought one, used it as directed, and was shocked by the results. I share those results, and I am told I must be mistaken. Can you see why I get a little bitter?

You mention...
"From posts on here, 8 ppm can be achieved in 5 gallon batches with 40 seconds of vigorous agitation. 8 ppm is sufficient for most brewing purposes. "

That is 1/2 right. Wyeast claims to get 8 PPM by shaking, but they never claim that 8 PPM to be suffecient. From Wyeast:

http://www.wyeastlab.com/hb_oxygenation.cfm

Method DO ppm Time
Siphon Spray 4 ppm 0 sec.
Splashing & Shaking 8 ppm 40 sec.
Aquarium Pump w/ stone 8 ppm 5 min
Pure Oxygen w/ stone 0-26ppm 60 sec (12ppm)

But see below, you were mistaken in saying that 8 PPM is the magic number.

"Some yeast strains have higher oxygen requirements than others. It is generally safe to assume that you need at least 10ppm of oxygen. 10ppm will supply adequate oxygen in most situations. Over-oxygenation is generally not a concern as the yeast will use all available oxygen within 3 to 9 hours of pitching and oxygen will come out of solution during that time as well. Under-oxygenation is a much bigger concern."

Page 79 of the Yeast book (can we just agree to call it the yeast book" now?) paints a less positive picture for the benefits of shaking. According to White Lab's experiments with a 1.077 wort, they found that shaking for 5 minutes observed 2.71 O2 PPM (that is a lot of shaking and a far cry for what "HBT Reading" claims). From there, 30 seconds of O2 = 5.12 PPM, 60 sec = 9.20 PPM, 120 sec = 14.08 PPM. You can listen to what you read on HBT, I'll listen to White Labs. After all, I have spent two years on HBT reading about how "shaking and stirring always worked fine for me!". This entire thread is a testament to how bad that advice was.

Finally, your LHBS is right, too much oxygen is bad for yeast. But they are wrong to not make such great equipment available to you. As an aside, my LHBS told me they rack their beer 4 times to get it crystal clear (throws up in mouth a little). Keep listening to those guys and repeat their beliefs because they are always really sharp. I bet you could write a book with the advice given to people on this board by their HBS. For O2 to become harmful, we are talking about ridiculous amounts of oxygen, not the 60 seconds that White Labs and Wyeast suggest to achieve the suggested 10 PPM. On an older episode of CYBI, Jamil talks about how Chad had access to free oxygen, and would run the tanks for 5-10 minutes. His beer never tasted right. Upon hearing that, Jamil advised him to cut down the O2 down to one minute, and his problems went away. So yes, you can add too much oxygen (if you have done no research and just prescribe to the more is better philosophy to get through life). So, does too much O2 have the ability to negatively effect your beer; yes. Do you know what also has a negative effect? Settling on splashing and shaking!

I am sorry for jumping down your throat about this, but your post is why I started this thread. I guess I just saw one person too many, armed with misinformation and zero experience with the process; bashing it. Too many forward thinking brewers have been turned off from improving their process by the masses who are happy to keep peddling old, tired techniques. Even if I was the only person turned off (although I am sure I am not), that was one person too many.

Experiment yourself, stop regurgitating (incorrect) information, and then we can continue the O2 discussion. And yes, I spent two weeks in Ireland last May, and drank fresh stout all over the country. I know mine stacks up, and that is not the point. The point is, this is a fairly new concept that had been bastardized by the uninformed; that needs to stop.

Joe
 
My point was not that yours doesn't stack up. It was just to point out that it's easy for a home brewer to ascertain if their beer is good. And I think a lot of people do that. (I realize this is not your point but I do not think it is adequate to have had good beer before. The comparison I mention necessitates having them one right after the other.)

I'm not saying that oxygenation will not improve beer. If I said that somewhere before, please point it out so I can apologize for it.

And I'm not saying you are incorrect about oxygen. For you, oxygen seems to have worked quite well. That does not say it will work for everyone. Other people may obtain similar results without oxygen. In skimming back through Briggs he talks (around page 479) about the interrelationship between yeast pitching rate, dissolved oxygen and the rate of primary fermentation. In a nutshell, what I take away from this is that if you pitch well, oxygen is less important.

There is always more than one variable.
 
Where have you found a left hand o2 reg for DIY prices?

I've honestly never looked but I am interested in finding out. Are they pretty hard to come by at a reasonable price? Surely they can't be too rare or expensive :confused:
 
Ordered my Williams o2 kit yesterday. The thing that had me worried was the price of o2, but that seems to be quelled. Looks like a $10 tank will last 20-30 brews per the website.

I looked at some other kits, but I like the long stainless wand of the Williams.

Unfortunately, it won't get here until the 26th or 27th, so I won't be able to use it for my weekend brew.
 
OP, I was not trying to upset you or even contradict you or write off what you are saying. I think that your finding a huge improvement in your beer is a good thing. I also read "Yeast" and thought the oxygenation discussion there was excellent and instructive.

What I didn't see there was commentary on impact on flavor - it was an time to attenuation and attenuation level discussion. One could certainly infer that flavor could be impacted, of course. But, one could also note in the table citing commercial DO levels that some pretty impressive tasting beers were fermented with far below optimal initial DO levels.

For those of us who use stir plates to build our starters, it was comforting to real about how that method provides outstanding and continuous DO levels for the starter yeast.

Your opinion is the one that matters most when it comes to your beer, and I was not trying to start an argument. I have found that my method of aeration seems to work pretty well - but probably no where near as well as the Williams system - and my beer is pretty good in my opinion (i.e., better than commercial versions - probably because it is fresh and not subjected to transportation stresses like temperature swings and jet lag.) I have made beer that I didn't like and didn't kid myself about it. And I discount feedback from friends steeply because...who would criticize free beer?

10 ppm may be a magic number...but Yeast implied that few good commercial breweries reach that number.

All that said, I am interested in an O2 setup and looking forward to seeing what the impact is on my beer. Will share the experience in this thread afterwards.
 
Meadowstream,

No hard feelings. Passionate debate is awesome.

I wanted to get an opinion out there for brewers who feel that they have done everything they can to "make the best beer possible" but still think their product can be better. That was the spot I found myself in.

I started with a partial mash kit on the stove top, and just caught the bug and kept upgrading to improve my process. I didn't invest in anything fancy, just the things I knew were important to the science of brewing. I learned how to mash with all-grain, because I liked the control it gave me in recipe formation. I bought a 2L flask and stir plate so I could make appropriate, healthy starters and use high quality, fresh liquid yeast. I made a true, wort temperature controlled fermentation chamber. The only hole I was concious about was that I knew I was kind of half-assing oxygenation. I closed that hole, and I suggest that if anyone else was in that position, and wanted to bring their beer to a new level, they should start thinking more about oxygen levels and their role in a healthy fermentation.

I just listened to the first good episode of Brewstrong in a while. It concentrated on Brewing for Competition. Jamil and Palmer got into interpreting scoresheets. One of the things they talked about is how the days of getting infected, bad beer (lets call it 15-25 point beers) are really over. They said the majority of the ratings fall in the 30-40 range, but in a big comp, those beers are really white noise. Respectable scores, and maybe winning scores in a smaller sample set, but really just white noise. They are beers that were clearly made by a brewer that knew what he was doing on brewday, was sanitary, and executed a good fermentation. Basically, the +40 point beers are the ones that elevated to a next level.

Again, that is the point I am trying to illustrate. I was really happy with my homebrew, because I knew what I was doing on brew day, I was sanitary, and I executed a good, controlled fermentation. But I would have been shocked if any beer I would have entered could have been the best beer in a competition - so I never bothered. Adding oxygen was a huge game changer for me, and I am sure that someone else who was in my position would find the same.

And this is not an O2 infomercial. You do not need to run out and buy a kit. As discussed earlier, it is probably a "g" in the alphabet of importance. Good/great beer can be made without. However you can not argue that all things constant, proper levels of oxygen PPM (as compared to settling with settling on what has worked) via an O2 kit/aeration will make good beer great, and great beer outstanding. I can't say for sure that an O2 kit is the only way to get to those proper PPM, but it certainly makes the task a hell of a lot easier. With that, from the experiments I have seen, the aeration methods most of us have been using may not be as effective as the heresay would indicate. So put 2 + 2 together, and decide for yourself if it is worth investigating the possibility of making better beer.

One thing I have heard and prescribed to is that if you come across some valuable piece of information, you should share it. I wouldn't be too proud to learn how to make a better beer, and keep the secrets to myself. On the other hand, if I shared a good bit of information, and someone else made a better beer because of it - then that is something to take pride in.

So cheers, and maybe I'll bump into you some time over a teardrop of Red God IPA at the CBC. I've been known to frequent their beer garden before a weekend in Boston.

Joe
 
Joe, thanks for your note! Would be great to grab a beer together a some local haunt - maybe exchange some homebrew, too. Funny thing about biologics is that sometimes what is healthiest for the micro-organism is not always best for the product. It is possible that under-oxygenating beer actually produces better (or more true to style or desired taste) than well-oxygenated beer. Of course the opposite could be true, too. We better exchange some beer and put this to the test.
 
We better exchange some beer and put this to the test.

Someone make a 15gal batch and split it into 3 fermenters with one being very little shaking/movement, one being lots of rocking and one being o2 injection. Packet of dry yeast per fermenter.
 
Someone make a 15gal batch and split it into 3 fermenters with one being very little shaking/movement, one being lots of rocking and one being o2 injection. Packet of dry yeast per fermenter.

I would, but my process only allows for 5G at a time.

Not a lot of room in the ferm chamber for a 2nd and 3rd carboy.

closed door.jpg


inside chamber.jpg
 
I could be brewing another batch this weekend, using the O2 wand. I'm considering brewing a recie that I brewed not too long ago, without the O2 wand/infusion setup. I'll know more today/tonight about that. Since I have the infusion setup and such, I really can't see not using it. Especially since it makes the brew day that much easier on me.

If some brewers based in MA want to hook up, we can brew at least a 10 gallon batch and do two aeration methods. I have the hardware to do that, just need someone to host.
 
meadowstream said:
Joe, thanks for your note! Would be great to grab a beer together a some local haunt - maybe exchange some homebrew, too. Funny thing about biologics is that sometimes what is healthiest for the micro-organism is not always best for the product. It is possible that under-oxygenating beer actually produces better (or more true to style or desired taste) than well-oxygenated beer. Of course the opposite could be true, too. We better exchange some beer and put this to the test.

While technically true, that's just absurdly reaching now.

However, knowing a bit about how variations in oxygenation can affect the flavor compounds produced by the yeast (among other attributes), there is a kernel of truth here:

A fairly small number of styles CAN definitely benefit from underaeration, and a few others can arguably at least see interesting results that are not necessarily detrimental to the beer. Although even in these cases, the health of future generations of the yeast will be negatively affected and, at a minimum, you will almost definitely see worsening attenuation (as in a higher final gravity) with each successive generation, which in my experience, AND repeatedly asserted by Chris White, is typically noticeable even after just a single generation. Not to mention that the data he provides also shows underattenuation in the under-oxygenated beer itself.

So it actually CAN be a valid and beneficial technique if done in an intentional, empirical manner (though I'd hesitate to reuse the yeast). There's nothing wrong with experimenting with varying levels of oxygenation, but obviously that's impossible to do without the ability to provide adequate levels of dissolved oxygen in the first place.

And I should probably elaborate on some of the figures being thrown around. The 8-10ppm target, as provided by White Labs and (I believe) Wyeast, is actually just sufficient to meet the requirements of only about half of the available yeast strains, according to Chris White. So the ability of an aquarium pump or even just the vigorous pouring/splashing/shaking/stirring/whatever method, both with a maximum of about 8ppm (since obviously they both have the same source of oxygen), are actually less adequate as routine methods used for every single batch than one would surmise from seeing the 8-10ppm figure that keeps being used.

Furthermore, people who have actually read "Yeast" and are still defending their use of the splash/shake/etc method - either as being "just as good" as an aquarium pump, or as being at least close to adequate - due to the ability to attain 8ppm of dissolved oxygen, seem to be suffering from extremely selective recollection of the material (cherry-picking), whether consciously or not. The maximum of 8ppm is certainly accurate, but these people are neglecting to acknowledge that this is a theoretical ceiling based on the oxygen content of the overall air being dissolved, and that the book goes on to mention the difficulty of actually coming even close to saturating the wort using these kinds of methods (where at least an aquarium pump can consistently and rather effortlessly do so.) Chris White writes that 5 minutes of shaking achieved a level of about 2.71 ppm in a 5.25gal batch, and that wort splashing techniques result in about 4 ppm. While doing both would increase dissolved oxygen, it would not result in a level the same as adding the two numbers (for several reasons), but even if we could say it did, all that back-breaking for every single batch when you could get better results with no effort whatsoever for such a small investment? It just seems foolish.
 
Aren't there enough posters here that someone can brew a batch and hit one carboy with pure O2 and one just shake or spray or whatever? And then aren't there enough brewers here that we can get a running list of brewers that split their oxygenation and share the results?
 
what are the chances its a placebo effect?

$50 plus shipping, plus an air tank(s) is an investment, but its still expensive
 
molsonG said:
what are the chances its a placebo effect?

$50 plus shipping, plus an air tank(s) is an investment, but its still expensive

An aquarium pump aeration kit can be bought for about $30 from a homebrew supply store. If you hunt around and put together the necessary stuff yourself, it can even be done for $20? As good as straight oxygen? Nope, but it's empirically better than simply splashing/shaking the wort. $20-$30 isn't much in this hobby. A great deal of people don't even think twice about dropping that kind of money on much smaller stuff. Heck, $50 will barely buy you the copper necessary to make a decent chiller these days. And yet I've always heard of oxygen systems referred to as "too expensive." For a long time I didn't even bother considering the idea because it's often been said in the past by people with brewing equipment even exceeding $5,000. If $50 sets me up with some equipment that enables me to take my beer to the next level, with oxygen costing a rather negligible 50¢ or so per batch, it's a no-brainer to me.

But the fact that under-oxygenation has been scientifically demonstrated to hurt yeast vitality and increase final gravities with each successive generation means it's actually a cost-saving measure for me too. It gives me the ability to reuse yeast many more times than I would use one that I've been chronically under-aerating, before determining that I should just buy some fresh stuff again. With the price that liquid yeast cells for, the ability to keep it healthy through proper oxygenation quickly pays for itself. Though at $50, I personally just consider it a bonus; maximizing the quality of the beer itself is something I seriously strive for.

I don't understand what you're referring to with the possibility of placebo; probably because you didn't directly refer to any particular post. I'm guessing to the people suggesting that somebody should do an experiment? If that's the case, I'm actually in agreement with you - I wouldn't trust any result comes up with as a consequence of this thread. People who have a bias for OR against using oxygen will have a nearly impossible time keeping it out of their experiment. Also, one result with one person, one style of beer and one strain of yeast does not prove whether something helps or hinders taste. It would have to be double-blind, with statistical analyses of the results of an adequately large and varied sample of people, styles, and strains.

But that's just to determine whether it can help or hurt a beer, and the reality is, educated but open-minded that have already experimented with various levelsbof oxygenation would mostly tell you that under-oxygenation hurts some beers, doesn't noticeably affect other beers, and even IMPROVES some beers.

Fact is, we know enough about yeast to understand how it utilizes oxygen. It's an extremely important part of lipid synthesis during the reproductive phase of yeast. One could predict from this that less oxygen often means lower levels of cell growth, and indeed, there is ample data to show that this is usually the case. And since we know how various flavor compounds are created or otherwise affected as a result of cell growth, a knowledgeable brewer can make some rough predictions as to how various levels of oxygenation might affect the resulting flavor of the beer. This is pretty well-established stuff for anyone willing to do the reading; the science is already far beyond any need for homebrewers to conduct some sloppy science.

Furthermore, the experiments have been done and there is more than enough data to demonstrate the negative effects under-oxygenation can have on yeast vitality and attenuation, and what's more, not just how these negative effects will remain present in future generations, but also how chronic under-oxygenation will further compound these problematic effects.

Granted, much of this stuff wasn't so conclusively known or so easily available to the layman a decade, or even 5 years ago. Considering how much of this hobby depends on tradition and how things used to be done - even independent of understanding - it's not surprising that so many homebrewers still argue over stuff regardless of the scientific consensus on the subject, or the actual merit of their position. Heck, humanity has been brewing for longer than we've understood anything about fermentation, starch conversion, flavor compounds, or that this stuff called oxygen even existed. And not surprisingly, people often bring up the fact that we've been brewing for far longer than we've even been able to conceive of certain concepts, so they must be unnecessary to making beer. And I'll even concede that it's almost always true - sanitation is a fairly novel concept considering how long we've been brewing for, and it isn't necessary. But beer used to all be pretty much sour from infection, to the point where if you were able to bring people an uninfected batch, they may very well dispute that it's even beer. Then we got some idea of beer "disease" before modern sanitary practice, where infections could be hindered but were ultimately inevitable, and the goal simply became to drink it before it got TOO bad, and brew beers stronger if we needed to keep them a bit longer. You can keep up any of these practices if you like - I enjoy a well-made sour, but having a random beer get randomly infected through sheer lack of sanitation is hardly going to produce a fine lambic. It was obviously "good enough" back in the day though. But as time goes on, brewers become more knowledgeable, and equipment and practices improve, what we call "good enough" today will eventually become mediocre, then barely drinkable, and finally, fit only for the drain. Can you make good beer without proper oxygenation? Of course you can - but those goalposts will continue moving upward and one day, debates like these are going to sound absurd. The only reason it doesn't already is the fact that this is far from being the first subject within brewing to be so hotly debated despite the scientific consensus and conclusive data that already exists on the matter, and I'm pretty sure it won't be the last!
 
Emjay,

Great write-up. Thanks for taking the time to contribute.

Emjay brings up an angle I haven't really addressed yet. I was urging curious brewers to try it because of the improvements I found in flavor, but I should have also addressed a couple changes I saw along the fermentation timeline.

The first thing I noticed was that my carboy took almost twice as long as usual to show visable "signs" of fermentation. Historically, I would pitch on Sunday night, and find a krausen and active fermentation on Monday morning. The past two batches were pitched on Sunday night, but showed no visable signs until Monday night.

Why?

As I understand it, the yeast will first seek out nutrients in the wort, and then move on to fermenting the sugars. The less nutrients, the faster they are forced to turn to the sugar. So I suppose, every time you see "2 hour lag time [insert emoticon here]!" that person really just pitched yeast into a wort without adequate nutrition. Ultra short lag times (like super high mash efficiency) seem like the homebrew equivilent of big fish tales. They are something people brag about, but in practice, they do more harm than good.

Second, if you look at the pictures I posted a bit earlier, you will notice I ferment 5 gallons of wort (plus a roughly 1 liter starter) in 5 gallon carboys (they fit a bit better in my fridge). Before I started using oxygen, I would bet my life on finding a ridiculous amount of blowoff leaving the carboy. All of a suddon, I introduce oxygen, and no more blowoff. You can see for yourself, a thick krausen has formed, but it is maintained in the headspace. Coincidence?

I know a couple other people mentioned using their O2 kits for the first time. I know it is too early to taste the results, but did you notice those two changes I mentioned (1. slower formation of "signs" and 2. less violent blowoff)?

Joe
 
Someone make a 15gal batch and split it into 3 fermenters with one being very little shaking/movement, one being lots of rocking and one being o2 injection. Packet of dry yeast per fermenter.
I don't think dry yeast would be a good choice because it already has the sterols needed for a full fermentation. That's why mfrs often say aeration isn't required with dry yeast but it always is with liquid yeast.
 
I don't think dry yeast would be a good choice because it already has the sterols needed for a full fermentation. That's why mfrs often say aeration isn't required with dry yeast but it always is with liquid yeast.

That is interesting. I have felt this was true but never heard an explanation for it.

I usually use dry yeast. And my fermentation typically does not start (or at least bubbles do not start) until 18-24 hours.

I am probably going to try pure O2 aeration but I'll probably wait until my next liquid yeast batch rather than using it with dry yeast.

One other thing. An earlier post mentions an aquarium pump. As I understand it, this essentially pumps room air into the wort. According to info above on this thread, the aquarium pump will achieve 8ppm of O2 in 5 minutes - the same as 40 seconds of vigorous agitation. But can the pump achieve more than 8ppm? I know people have posted on HBT that 8 ppm is the max for an aquarium pump but I'm not sure where they got that information. Maybe this is related to limitations of room air aeration?

Anyone have any definitive info suggesting you can get more than 8ppm with an aquarium pump?
 
I don't think anyone is questioning the scientific rationale as to why oxygen is required for proper yeast growth. As emjay points out, the science is clear. I think the question that should be asked is: how important is it for homebrewers?

There is other things that should be focused on first before worrying about oxygenation. Shelling out $50 for a oxygenation kit is money poorly spent if you don't have a good way to control fermentation temps, or a good way to chill your wort, or are not making yeast starter cultures based on the OG of your wort (e.g. using MrMalty).

Is an oxygen setup the best way to introduce the proper amount of oxygen? Yes. If you want to do it right, use the right tool for the job.

For me, it seems like the question is: How good is your beers without supplemental oxygen?; and How much better could they be?

For the beers I make (OGs around 1.050-1.070), I would guess that I get 90-95% of the way to a theoretically "perfectly fermented" beer without using supplemental oxygen and making sure to nail down other aspects of my process. Is it worth it for me to chase down that last 5-10%?? I'm not sure.

I'll be honest and say this thread has got me thinking about getting an oxygenation setup, but really I'm not sold based on the evidence provided. Anecdotal evidence aside, I would like to see some more controlled studies on the effect of oxygenation in a home brewing setting (i.e. splitting a batch and oxygenating one, not oxygenating the other, followed by a triangle taste taste of knowledgeable tasters/judges).

I'd also like to see more data with the diffused oxygen measurements that Wyeast has done....they gave some pretty hard/fast numbers of ppm dissolved oxygen with different aeration methods, but they didn't give an idea of variability associated with those measurements. Also, a dose-response effect isn't really clear (i.e. a 5 ppm increase leads to x improvement in yeast growth).

Just my 0.02.
 
Anyone have any definitive info suggesting you can get more than 8ppm with an aquarium pump?

I don't know. The issue with the aquarium pump is that it pumps air...which is only 21% oxygen. So you are kind of ham-strung with how much oxygen you can get into the wort using a mixed gas that is only partially made up of oxygen.

You get better oxygen incorporation with pure oxygen because its, well 100% oxygen!
 
I don't know. The issue with the aquarium pump is that it pumps air...which is only 21% oxygen. So you are kind of ham-strung with how much oxygen you can get into the wort using a mixed gas that is only partially made up of oxygen.

You get better oxygen incorporation with pure oxygen because its, well 100% oxygen!

re: 21%... absolutely.

I was only asking because of emjay's post. And the fact that almost everyone carries aquarium pumps and fewer places carry oxygen set-ups.

I mentioned earlier that I bought a can/tank of oxygen but couldn't get an oxygen set-up. This has made me second guess oxygen but I'll still probably get a set-up at some point.
 
I would, but my process only allows for 5G at a time.

Same.

I know people have posted on HBT that 8 ppm is the max for an aquarium pump but I'm not sure where they got that information. Maybe this is related to limitations of room air aeration?

The book Yeast has this information.

"Using an aquarium pump with a sintered stone will not result in more than 8ppm, even with extended times. The only way to reach the recommended 10ppm minimum is with the addition of oxygen."
 
There is other things that should be focused on first before worrying about oxygenation. Shelling out $50 for a oxygenation kit is money poorly spent if you don't have a good way to control fermentation temps, or a good way to chill your wort, or are not making yeast starter cultures based on the OG of your wort (e.g. using MrMalty).

For me, it seems like the question is: How good is your beers without supplemental oxygen?; and How much better could they be?

For the beers I make (OGs around 1.050-1.070), I would guess that I get 90-95% of the way to a theoretically "perfectly fermented" beer without using supplemental oxygen and making sure to nail down other aspects of my process. Is it worth it for me to chase down that last 5-10%?? I'm not sure.

Good points Broadbill. That is another theme of this thread. A few pages back we talked about how many steps a brewer should make before oxygen becomes the next purchase. There were quite a few.

And yes, "Shelling out $50 for a oxygenation kit is money poorly spent if you don't have a good way to control fermentation temps, or a good way to chill your wort, or are not making yeast starter cultures based on the OG of your wort (e.g. using MrMalty)." - but those are areas that I really concentrated on and excel in. I too believed I was 95% of the way to a perfect fermentation. For that to have been the case, considering the effects/changes I found once adding oxygen, you would have to acheive 130% to be at perfect fermentation. In other words, there was far more than a barely noticeable 5% improvement.

But you ask good questions, and no, a brewer without those neccessities you mentioned (fermentation control, chilling, yeast health) will not see the same marketable improvements. Those things are all requirments.

To illustrate, I have an excellent way to control fermentation temps (I will repost picture below). In fact, it is pretty obvious that my chamber set-up would probably fall in the 99 percentile when it comes to fermentation temp control.

We've talked about my rig - the 1550 "lite"- and I assume you remember seeing pictures of the Jamil-o-chiller. Is there a more effective way of quickly cooling your wort (more pics below)?

Finally, every brew gets a fresh vial(s) of liquid yeast, in a flask, on a stirplate, with nutrients. I do not have a picture to "prove" I do starters, but I do not think it is a stretch to someone to believe it. Besides, a pic of an active stirplate is pretty boring.

I promise you, if you already have techniques in line to what I am doing, and you decide to add the O2, you will agree it was the best investment you have made yet. I also thought I was doing things to 95% of ideal conditions, because I was already splashing around wort as instructed, so was the 5% gap I left really worthy of a $50 investment?

Yes, yes it was (so I started a thread to talk about it).

Joe

Ferm chamber and Jamil-o-chiller
 
I didn't think $50 was that bad. If it was $50 and each o2 tank was $50 too, then I'd stick to shaking. But $10 per tank for 20-30 batches isn't that much.

If it lasts 30 batches, that's $2 a batch including the cost of the setup. After the cost of the setup, it's like $0.33 a batch for the o2.
 
The book Yeast has this information.

"Using an aquarium pump with a sintered stone will not result in more than 8ppm, even with extended times. The only way to reach the recommended 10ppm minimum is with the addition of oxygen."
They made no mention of temperature in this? I think you could hit 10 ppm just by reducing the temp.
 
I think I found a problem with your setup. I marked it on your image below...

I would love to give you a hard time, but with the Knicks down 0-2 and the Yankees having a pretty sad weekend in Boston, there is really little for me to say.

Actually, Rutgers football has been really bad lately, Conan O'Brian was fired from the Tonight Show, Austalia had devestating floods, and Ireland's Economy was just flushed down the toilet.

Pretty much, if you are a magnet on my fridge, you are screwed (like that letter "A").

Good times.

Joe
 
Yeah, I guess a position on the frig is currently a dubious honor.

But I like the "A" magnet.
 
Yeah, I am sorry about that - kind of a grey area. I always forget it is on there, but realized it when I was looking over the collection of loser magnets.

It always gets a little awkward when I say, "and Grandma, this is the fermentation chamber (as she looks on with horror)."
 
They made no mention of temperature in this? I think you could hit 10 ppm just by reducing the temp.

That statement definitely requires a caveat around temperature. Every homebrewer who kegs knows gas is more soluble at lower temperatures.

It's possible the caveat exists in the text and was excluded from the quote.
 
They made no mention of temperature in this? I think you could hit 10 ppm just by reducing the temp.

If brewing an ale, why would you want to drop the temperature low enough to get over 10ppm just for the sake of hitting 10ppm? I think fermentation temperature is more important than wort aeration.

White Labs did a test in the book at 75°F, but it didn't include an aquarium pump....just shaking for 5 minutes and then 30, 60, and 120 seconds of pure O2. Shaking was not close to adequate and 60 seconds was the best.
 
If brewing an ale, why would you want to drop the temperature low enough to get over 10ppm just for the sake of hitting 10ppm? I think fermentation temperature is more important than wort aeration.

White Labs did a test in the book at 75°F, but it didn't include an aquarium pump....just shaking for 5 minutes and then 30, 60, and 120 seconds of pure O2. Shaking was not close to adequate and 60 seconds was the best.
Any O2 over the saturation level for a given temp would just come out of solution, so you're right that reducing it just to hit a number might seem fruitless because it will come out as you warm it back up. But some brewers like to chill below ferm temp, pitch yeast cool, then let it warm up to the actual ferm temp. The yeast consumes the O2 relatively early and quickly so the yeast might get some additional O2 using that method. And some brewers might be aerating when not fully chilled so I thought it was worth mentioning.

But FWIW, I bought the Williams O2 kit and a bottle of O2 from Home Depot specifically for lagers. Which imo, need the higher O2 even more than ales.
 
what do non brewers who buy the tanks at hardware stores use them for? there must be another place to get a regulator, homebrewshops mark it up
 
They use oxygen to mix with fuel to burn metal at higher temps. I bought mine at home depot in the welding section.
 
Back
Top