I completely underestimated role of oxygen

Speaking of oxygen levels over 10ppm, is there any resource that lists oxygen requirements by strain? The "Yeast" book by White and Zainasheff mentions that yeast strains can have low, moderate, or high oxygen needs, but never goes beyond that. I can't find anywhere that, e.g. White Labs, lists yeast by oxygen need. Am I just looking in the wrong places?

GuldTuborg said:

Speaking of oxygen levels over 10ppm, is there any resource that lists oxygen requirements by strain? The "Yeast" book by White and Zainasheff mentions that yeast strains can have low, moderate, or high oxygen needs, but never goes beyond that. I can't find anywhere that, e.g. White Labs, lists yeast by oxygen need. Am I just looking in the wrong places?

Click to expand...

There are countless yeast strains, available and proprietary, so for the commercially available ones, it's pretty much up to the labs that sell them.

Although Chris White provides the procedure for determining it for any yeast strain you might have. Keep in mind though that generating a quantifiable list like this would only show optimal oxygen levels for yeast health, which aren't always the same as the optimal levels for taste (which is something you have to experiment for yourself with your own beers).

Putting a False Bottom in my kettle. Was shocked to see how very little trub ended up in my fermenter. At first I thought something was wrong it was such a dramatic difference.

I use a Polarware Kettle. I love it. I bought the false bottom too. You're right. My first batch fermented much cleaner. No trub and hardly any hops at the bottom of the fermenter. It was a pliny the elder clone too, so there was plenty of hops used.

Sounds like I need to invest into getting oxygen in my fermenter.

emjay said:

Keep in mind though that generating a quantifiable list like this would only show optimal oxygen levels for yeast health

Click to expand...

This bears emphasis. So often the quest for the "perfect" process may be misguided. For example, some Trappist brewers like to underpitch a bit to get the flavor they're looking for. The brewer's objective isn't simply to grow healthy yeast, but to brew tasty beer. That can mean stressing the little guys a bit.

Rundownhouse said:

Just knocked out 11g of a 1.056 ale. Went into two carboys that each got 11.5g of rehydrated US-05. One carboy got my 60s of mix-stir aeration, the other got 60s of O2. Last time I discovered a leak in my O2 setup, and this time around I corrected that. I also just opened the regulator all the way for those 60s. This time I got much better foam on top of the wort, but its still not as thick as the mix-stir.

So two carboys, each with 5.5g of 1.056 wort that got pitched with 11.5g of rehydrated US-05, sitting in a chest freezer with a sp of 67 and diff of 1. I'll check on them and let you guys know if I see any differences.

Click to expand...

I checked on this beer after 24 hours. The mix-stir carboy had a thick krausen already developed. The O2 carboy had a relatively clear top, with just the very beginning signs of foam islands starting to form. Over the next couple hours it would knit together and begin krausen formation. I took samples and both were at about 1.053-1.054. This really surprised me, I expected more of a drop, especially given the krausen on the mix-stir carboy.

I checked them both again today, at ~75 hours after pitch. The mix-stir carboy was at 1.030 and the O2 carboy is at 1.027. Again, I was surprised, because I expected the carboy that had formed krausen first to be further along, if any difference between the two, and it had formed krausen hours before the other carboy.

Both samples tasted great, though! I probably won't check on them again until its time to keg, unless anyone here cares and can - gently! - twist my arm into it.

I really enjoyed reading this. I just ordered an oxygen setup from Williams too. I figured $50 is no biggie and if nothing else, it's one more toy to play with and it eliminates shaking.

Anymore updates from anyone?

All three of my batches hit with pure O2 are still in process. Might be bottling one of them this weekend. Once I have a result to post I will.

I plan to use a double infusion with my barley wine and old ale that will be started pretty soon.

I did a 1.065 AG pilsner - my first lager attempt and my first use of pure oxygen.

I brought the wort down to 58 (it was tough for me to get much lower). After cooling, I rehydrated 3 packets of Saflager 34/70. I pitched this into the wort and aerated with the Williams oxygenator for about 75 seconds and then placed the fermenter in a 52 degree temperature controlled frig, reaching 52 in the bucket at about 12-18 hours.

It took almost 72 hours to show a bubble in the airlock. Much longer than I expected but I have no means of comparison for a lager.

Hopefully it goes well from here...

I have now bottled two different batches that I oxygenated using my Williams system. I need to wait a little longer before I'll know for sure, but the samples I had while bottling tasted awesome. They were very, very clean. I've had some mild unwanted esters in previous batches that I did not oxygenate. I also have a third batch finishing up fermenting that was hit with the O2. I'll have lots of results to report soon. Nothing very scientific... but should be interesting as I did about 25 batches without oxygen prior to getting my system.

I used my William's system for the first time yesterday...after nearly 4 years of brewing, it'll be interesting to see the difference. However, I think the main reason for going to the oxygen system is that the methods available to me before have been pretty much demonstrated ineffective in providing a good, consistent level of æration.

The system is extremely easy to use, and I really like the æration stone on the end of a 22" SS tube. IT allows me to set the stone in the boil pot for the last 15 minutes along with the chiller, so that it's sanitized when the time comes. The rigid tube means I can chill and stir and it stays out of the way.

From reading many other threads here on Oxygenating, and also some other websites I just want to add a few points:

1 - it seems that the 2 micron Oxygen stone produces bubbles that are too large and that the 0.5 micron stone is preferable. While visually the 2 micron bubbles may look like its doing a good job, it's not as effective. The 0.5 micron stone ts much harder to keep clean. You must have a cup of almost boiling water near by and the moment you pull the stone out, dip it in the hot water, with the Oxygen flowing for a few seconds, to make sure the stone is cleared out. After you turn off the Oxygen, you may want to dip the stone in Isopropyl Alcohol, to further clean it.

For those that use a 0.5 Oxygen stone - what have your experiences been? How easy is it to clean and does it get blocked too easily?


2 - If 8ppm is roughly the best you can get in nature at say 68 degrees, then why do yeast thrive at a much higher level (10-15)? That level has not been seen on earth for well over 250 million years, if ever. Is the Beer really going to taste any different if you attain 8PPM vs 10PPM? I kind of doubt it. (though I could be wrong).

3 - A number of articles mention that over oxygenating the wort is detrimental to the beer. 40 seconds is fine. Is 60 seconds too much? If you are an extract brewer and brew 3 gallons of wort , pour it through a strainer into a plastic fermentation bucket, and add 2 gallons of cold oxygenated water (I boil and cool and refrigerate so as to have clean water) wont there be some dissolved gases (not 8ppm O2 though) making it harder for the O2 system to oxygenate the wort?

4 - There are different studies here and on other websites about shaking. One problem is they don't compare shaking a car boy, filled to near the top, with a 6.5 gallon plastic fermentor holding 5 gallons, which has more air space, and thus will be easier to oxygenate.

5 - How effective is the stirring rod that can be attached to a drill? It wont give you more than 8PPM 02, but I'd like to know if it gets you from 1PPM to near 8PPM in a short time, like 6 seconds.

6 - Some articles say that you need to shake for 5 minutes, not 40 seconds, to get close to 8PPM 02. 40 seconds is easy, 5 minutes is a chore.


For now I will stick to shaking, but I am curious that if I try the exact same recipe and use Oxygen, if there will be a noticeable difference. My gut feeling is people buy some equipment and perceive better results. Its a placebo effect, and this applies not just to brewing but to all walks of life. Maybe an ideal system keeps the wort at 10PPM 02 for the first 8-12 hours, but is there really going to be that much difference compared to 8PPM? What I can believe is people pitch their yeast at 85 degrees, and don't aerate their wort at all. Maybe THAT makes a much bigger difference.

In summary - I'm still on the fence. I'm not disagreeing with the 02 crowd, just not sold as they offer anecdotal evidence (as do the shakers) and some of the "studies" aren't all that well done (poor controls, etc). Maybe the study in Yeast is well done, and it still has little impact on the beer, compared to using a stir plate and making sure the yeast is well Oygenated.

IMHO, going to an æration stone that requires that kind of maintenance is like trying to put too sharp a point on a pencil. Plain old oxygen aeration will get close enough to the saturation level, and as far as anyone can tell, plenty of O2 for the yeast.

Yes, I believe that if I perceive a better fermentation (faster, more airlock activity, etc.) that it's placebo. But more rigorous test have been done, and have been documented to the extent that I'm convinced oxygenation works. I've got a good ferment going on my first batch ærated with oxygen, but I make no scientific claims. If I taste the finished beer and it's good, I will have achieved my goal, which was to provide adequate æration. The other methods available to me were clearly inadequate according to all the discussions and research I've done, and rather than go with a drill-stirrer or aquarium pump, I decided to go directly to oxygen.

ArcLight, I think the thread prior to your post addresses many of your points. There are not necessarily definitive answers to your points but there are several ideas relevant to your points.

I bought "Yeast". I don't know how well it answers your points as I haven't finished it yet but it is touted to be the best source. The guy who co-wrote it started the White Labs. I'm sure that some of the proof of oxygen use may lie in the taste of the beer. This is subjective and therefore there will likely never be the kind of proof to satisfy everyone.

But many opinions, educated or otherwise state that underaeration is more of an issue than overaeration. And 8ppm is reported to be a little less than optimal. As to the relevance to good tasting beer... I'm hoping that "Yeast" will answer this.

Also, the fact that a given concentration has not been an environmental condition on Earth (I'm trusting you on this) for a long time does not bear relevance to its effects on yeast. As a possibly irrelevant example... we need vitamins to live. These are all available naturally. But if we eat the wrong things, we develop vitamin deficiency syndromes and are unhealthy. We could eat a lot of a given food to make up for it or we could take a vitamin pill. The pill does not exist naturally and will result in higher than natural levels of the vitamin in our blood stream. But the pills are still very effective.

I'm not saying that oxygen is the answer. As I posted above, on my first batch with oxygen, I had to wait 3 days for my lager to show airlock activity.

But overall, I decided that oxygen is another toy I get to play with and it may or may not make a difference but utilized properly it makes my brew day a little easier and it will not do any harm to give it a shot.

I'm not saying Oxygen isn't better than shaking, it probably is. I just wonder "How much better"? I also wonder if some of the perceived improvement by those switching to Oxygen was that previously their wort was under aerated (lets say at 4PPM). On the WyYeast website they mention 40 seconds of shaking. They also have an article that is somewhat different than what people are saying here.

Also, a couple of articles mention that 2 microns is too big and the wort is not really being oxygenated well. There are bubbles, but the wort in general is not reaching 10ppm. So even if Oxygenating is better (and I'm not saying its not), I still wonder if most people are getting much benefit form a 2 micron stone.

I'd like to try Oxygen at some point, make a batch and split it into two fermentors, one Oxygenated, and one shaken. Forget about how fast the fermentation is, instead see how the wort attenuates and the beer tastes in the end. In fact, 3 buckets is better than 2 since I could test the benefit of a second Oygenation at 9 hours. OR comparing a 2 micron and a 0.5 micron stone.

I say defer to the experts. The yeast labs say 10ppm minimum for good growth. Only 8ppm is possible with air. Their job is yeast, they work with it every day, they KNOW those numbers. That's not anecdotal.

My experience since switching to pure O2 is a slightly longer lag time followed by a much more vigorous ferment and faster completion. My beers are almost always more than drinkable as soon as they're carbed, so I assume that an ideal fermentation results in faster maturation as well.

I found it interesting that in Yeast, they mention Sierra Nevada having problems early on trying to create their pale ale. They couldn't quite get it where they wanted it and consulted with White Labs thinking it was a yeast issue. White Labs found that they were slightly under-oxygenating. Once they increased it to the levels White Labs recommended for that strain, it finally became what they were striving to achieve.

Does a slight difference in oxygen make a difference? Is it enough to taste in the final beer? I'm surprised there are so many on the fence as to whether it's worth it or not. It's such a trivial cost to implement, and the experts clearly show in the book that oxygen is key.

>.Does a slight difference in oxygen make a difference? Is it enough to taste in the final beer? I'm surprised there are so many on the fence as to whether it's worth it or not. It's such a trivial cost to implement, and the experts clearly show in the book that oxygen is key.

What does the equipment to measure PPM O2 in wort cost?

Other than that piece of equipment and the associated costs (lab work) it requires making some batches of different beer and varying the Oxygenation. Then having a panel of experts compare the two (or 3 batches). (10 PPM vs 8 PPM vs let say 6PPM).
This isn't that expensive for a lab, but its not so cheap for us as I suspect the equipment/lab fees are in the hundreds (if not higher), and we'd have no use for this equipment afterwards.

The other point is does oxygenating with a 2 micron airstone for 60 seconds really oxygenate the beer well? Or does it make some bubles but a fair amount ends up not being absorbed.

I'm still interested in the 0.5 micron air stone vs. the 2 micron air stone for pure Oxygen.


Its pretty clear to me that if the $60 Oxygen system makes a noticable difference in taste, I should buy one. Heck, its not that expe nsive, maybe I'll buy one anyway, as a test. I just have my doubts that it will make any noticable difference. But for $60 , what the heck. I'm in this hobby for the taste, not to make cheap beer.

FWIW, I have a 2 micron stone. I can adjust the regulator(Williams one) to where bubbles will exit the stone near the bottom of the fermenter but do not visibly break the surface of the wort. I assume most of the oxygen is dissolving. I do this for 1 minute. I don't have a flow meter, so I can't tell you exactly how much oxygen I'm dissolving. Beers have been fantastic.

It's worth the money to me because, A.) Don't have to wait 30 minutes with my air pump or break my back shaking the fermenter and B.) I can safely assume I've hit adequate O2 levels.

The guy at the LHBS here doesn't use pure O2 because he claims he didn't see a difference. Me, I just feel it's worth cutting out another 30 minutes of time at the end of a long brew-day.

ArcLight said:

>.Does a slight difference in oxygen make a difference? Is it enough to taste in the final beer? I'm surprised there are so many on the fence as to whether it's worth it or not. It's such a trivial cost to implement, and the experts clearly show in the book that oxygen is key.

What does the equipment to measure PPM O2 in wort cost?

Other than that piece of equipment and the associated costs (lab work) it requires making some batches of different beer and varying the Oxygenation. Then having a panel of experts compare the two (or 3 batches). (10 PPM vs 8 PPM vs let say 6PPM).
This isn't that expensive for a lab, but its not so cheap for us as I suspect the equipment/lab fees are in the hundreds (if not higher), and we'd have no use for this equipment afterwards.

Click to expand...

The trivial cost I was referring to was for implementing pure oxygen into the process, not funding a research project to reproduce their findings.

>.According to the new yeast book, yes. They recommend at least 60 seconds at pitch and again at the 12-18 hour mark. 90 seconds at each point wouldn't be off at all. Apparently, that second shot at the 12-18 hour mark is more important than a larger saturation at pitch.


OK, I am really interested now. I think I will buy the O2 system at some point and try a 3 batch test.

Boil the wort (a 1.055 or higher SG), Pitch the yeast, stir it in to make sure its uniformly distrubuted. (Or should I pitch the yeast after oxygenation, into the 3 buckets, how do I control the exact amount of yeast pitched?)
Use 3 buckets:

#1: O2 for 60 seconds, and at 12 hours another 60 seconds O2 (hope there is no infection introduced by this, the wort will be exposed for 120 seconds.

#2: O2 for 60 seconds

#3: the shake for 45 seconds method, maybe with a strainer bag as well.


Then see if there is a difference in taste. If there is a noticeable improvement, as opposed to "Hmm, I think, maybe sort of, #3 doesn't quite taste as good as the others" its a success. What I am hoping is #1 will taste noticeably better.

ArcLight said:

What I am hoping is #1 will taste noticeably better.

Click to expand...

Why? Do you own stock in some bottled gas company?

I'm hoping #3 is the best so I don't have to buy anything else...

ArcLight said:

>.According to the new yeast book, yes. They recommend at least 60 seconds at pitch and again at the 12-18 hour mark. 90 seconds at each point wouldn't be off at all. Apparently, that second shot at the 12-18 hour mark is more important than a larger saturation at pitch.


OK, I am really interested now. I think I will buy the O2 system at some point and try a 3 batch test.

Boil the wort (a 1.055 or higher SG), Pitch the yeast, stir it in to make sure its uniformly distrubuted. (Or should I pitch the yeast after oxygenation, into the 3 buckets, how do I control the exact amount of yeast pitched?)
Use 3 buckets:

#1: O2 for 60 seconds, and at 12 hours another 60 seconds O2 (hope there is no infection introduced by this, the wort will be exposed for 120 seconds.

#2: O2 for 60 seconds

#3: the shake for 45 seconds method, maybe with a strainer bag as well.


Then see if there is a difference in taste. If there is a noticeable improvement, as opposed to "Hmm, I think, maybe sort of, #3 doesn't quite taste as good as the others" its a success. What I am hoping is #1 will taste noticeably better.

Click to expand...

3 dried (1 each batch) packets of yeast from the same production date would prob be the easiest control I would think

>>3 dried (1 each batch) packets of yeast from the same production date would prob be the easiest control I would think

But wont they taste worse than the liquid yeast? OR are there some very good dried packs?

ArcLight said:

>>3 dried (1 each batch) packets of yeast from the same production date would prob be the easiest control I would think

But wont they taste worse than the liquid yeast? OR are there some very good dried packs?

Click to expand...

There are SOME dried yeasts these days which are, in all likelihood, just as good as the liquid yeasts. I haven't seen a ton of actual science to that effect, but the anecdotal evidence is incredibly strong. Even if they turned out to be not quite as good, at worst they are still very close, and dried yeasts have definitely improved immensely in the last few decades. The big problem with dry yeasts in modern homebrewing has more to do with the variety than anything else.... there simply isn't anywhere near the depth of strain selection that you get with liquid yeasts.

For the record, I use liquid yeast for primary fermentation in all my beers, and only use dry yeast if I need to use a second (or third) yeast for whatever reason, whether it's to further dry a beer out, if I feel like it needs a dose of healthy yeast for bottle carbing, etc.

ArcLight said:

>>3 dried (1 each batch) packets of yeast from the same production date would prob be the easiest control I would think

But wont they taste worse than the liquid yeast? OR are there some very good dried packs?

Click to expand...

I now use S-05 for everything where I'd use Wyeast 1056. I can discern no difference*, and the S-05 is cheaper and more convenient to use. Pretty much the same with Nottingham in any British ale. I will of course use something like the Weihenstephan liquid yeast in a Hefeweizen, or the proper Belgian yeast in those styles, as equivalent dry yeasts simply don't exist.

*I have no problem that YOU may be able to tell a difference among the yeasts mentioned- but I can't, my beer, etc. YMMV, do what you please.

US-05 / 1056 / wlp001 are all the Chico(Sierra Nevada) strain

i guess a potential issue with using dry is that dry yeast don't have the same oxygen requirements that liquid does according to Danstar

terrapinj said:

US-05 / 1056 / wlp001 are all the Chico(Sierra Nevada) strain

i guess a potential issue with using dry is that dry yeast don't have the same oxygen requirements that liquid does according to Danstar

Click to expand...

Huge issue. In fact, they say that oxygenation/aeration is unnecessary but won't do any harm to their dry yeasts.

That is the answer I was looking for. Oxygenated wort allows growth of vast numbers of yeast , the bubbles created being carbon dioxide. That's the aerobic respiratory phase of the process. When the Oxygen is depleted the yeasties go into anaerobic respiration. That's when the alcohol is produced, during anaerobic. The 1.020 bug mentioned by kpr121 was most probably because of a low population of yeast not able to consume the sugars in the wort. I highly recommend all brewers purchase "Brew Chem 101" by Lee Janson. Google it up. It is a detailed chemistry lesson on home brewing including off flavors and how they get into beer and how to keep them out.
Thanks for the replies.

Anybody tracking the olive oil experiments going on over at probrewer? Apparently a couple of guys are using olive oil and dried egg yolk as sources of oleic acid. This process allows some brewers to bypass the oxygenation of their wort. It's worth a read.

http://www.probrewer.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=17419

-sorry for threadjack

I bottled my first batch where I used the O2 wand setup from Williams Brewing... We tasted the hydrometer sample and it was great. I'll be bottling the second batch on Sunday and will report on it. I'm very excited to actually try the batches once carbonated. First batch is a blonde ale, second is an English pale ale. According to the OG/FG readings, I hit 75-76% attenuation with the batch.

I've used the system in every beer since getting it. Especially excited about the mocha porter that I started on Sunday. While there was no evident activity after ~6 hours from pitching (fermenting in a Sanke keg, so have to by either blow-off tube, or airlock) just 8-12 hours later it was in full swing. Had a period of greater activity after that, before calming down (there's 'stuff' on the end of the tube, as my brew buddy reports)... Considering I had good efficiency with the batch (76%) I hope to hit about 7.5% ABV. I didn't think I was going to get that good of a result, so I didn't make a starter. But, it appears, that using a good amount of pure O2 for the infusion into the wort made up for it this time.

If I can get similar positive results by simply hitting the wort with pure O2 for 30-120 seconds, I'll do it.

I'm planning to brew an English IPA next, using the O2 system, and a 1/4 keg to ferment in. The 1/4 (or pony) keg should eliminate the need for the blow-off tube... Also means I should be able to get 5 gallons into bottles for a change. :rockin:

Good update. Looking foward to your analysis of possible taste differences/improvements by using the O2 compared to your previous methods

Here's my update:

For my first batch with my O2 setup, the carboy with O2 finished at 1.016 and the carboy that got my normal aeration routine using a mix-stir finished at 1.014. From my previous post, I had a bit of a hiccup using the O2 system for the first time, in the form of an O2 leak, so I wasn't really sure how well I was oxygenating. During fermentation, both beers were at similar gravities each time I checked them.

For my second batch, the carboy with O2 finished at 1.015, while the mix-stir finished at 1.016. During fermentation, the O2 carboy took longer to form krausen, but was ahead gravity-wise each time I checked.

So of course, small sample size, not rigorously scientific, inconclusive... but that's why I have White Labs doing the real research. I've got two carboys of IIPA fermenting now, and I upped the O2 on each of them from the 60s that I had been doing to 90s. I'm pretty happy with my O2 setup, and the only thing I might do different is sell it to buy a real tank and a regulator, so I have more control over how much O2 I'm putting in my beers.

+1 On getting a real tank and regulator. I found I'd been under O2ing when I got my real setup. I'd been just going by the how much bubbles come to the surface method but the flow meter showed different. Troll eBay for some deals.

I might just hit a welding supply shop for a regulator and tank in the next month, or two... Hopefully, I'll be able to step the gas line to mate to the O2 stone wand I have.

I do have an O2 tank in my gas welding setup, but I'd rather not steal that tank for this. Besides, I'd probably get a smaller O2 tank for brewing, so that it's easier to move around.

I'll post up once I have the proper tank/regulator setup put together. Maybe one of the existing vendors should offer something like this. If not the tank, at least the regulator with the hoses to connect the O2 stone to it.

Bigscience said:

+1 On getting a real tank and regulator. I found I'd been under O2ing when I got my real setup. I'd been just going by the how much bubbles come to the surface method but the flow meter showed different. Troll eBay for some deals.

Click to expand...

I don't weld, and I haven't spent much time in a hospital. What does a real O2 regulator look like and what does the whole "real" setup consist of?

Has anyone tried force oxygenating a beer?
I know they make sparkling vodka with oxygen (because ethanol don't got the chemistys for holding gas as well as water does)

simtel20 said:

I don't weld, and I haven't spent much time in a hospital. What does a real O2 regulator look like and what does the whole "real" setup consist of?

Click to expand...

Here is what mine looks like:



It was an O2 regulator and a separate flow meter that I got off eBay and put together. Both the high and low pressure gauges were to the top and a nipple to the left. I pulled the tee off, put the low pressure gauge to the left and the flow meter to the front.

Here is a top view:

I just wanted to report back after tasting my first brew where I used O2 and the wand from Williams. I brewed the same beer that I had brewed a few months back, and all I can say is that the beer that was oxygenated just tastes cleaner. I am not sure if my shaking was ever adequate enough though....

Anyway, it made a difference for me, and I'm happy.

I got my O2 wand from Williams a couple months back. I had brewed many, many batches without oxygenating my wort. I had just been running my wort through a strainer and then doing some splashing in the bucket.

I've now done seven batches with the oxygen and I can honestly say that my beer tastes much cleaner. I had been getting some fruity esters using very clean yeasts in beers where I didn't want them.