Oxygenation Poll

I currently oxygenate solely by pouring wort through a strainer into the ale pail and then agitate with my paddle prior to pitching.

I have read about and understand why oxygen is important for the reproductive phase of yeast.

However, are my practices enough? I know others do more. I would get an oxygenation system but I don't relish the idea of flammable tanks of gas in my condo.

What does everyone else do?

I'm really interested to hear from people who have had a lot of experience both with and without direct oxygen. Has anyone done experimentation with oxygen vs with something similar to my current method? What were the differences if any in the final product?

Just trying to tweak my methods and always up for more advice.

if i remeber correctly from a long time ago Bobby_M did an experiement like what your describing. I have done both but only use Pure 02 when im looking at something in excess of 1.060 but thats just me and an arbitrary value i have set in my head. The tanks are very small and safe- check out midwest supply...Your talking about ~40 seconds of gas in a batch through an airstone for aeration that way. If the strainer method is working for you then stick with that but i would make sure your not pouring hot or you may have some hot side aeration going on.

I was discussing this with a friend of mine last night. I'm no pro brewer, but I've done 6-8 beer brews and a few batches of wine. It strikes me as silly that anybody would take a thousands-of-years-old craft and say that you MUST use clinical grade oxygen supplimentation or you're missing out.

By all means convince me that I'm crazy.

I get the same results with my aquarium pump hooked to my racking cain.. Only thing is time.. I give it 15 to 20 minutes and not worried about bugs because of the positive air pressure.. I do have a stone on the end of my cain now but didn't use one for many years..

The new Zainasheff/White book, "Yeast", offers the following. They believe that optimal oxygen levels in wort are 8-10 ppm. Jamil "believes" that with adequate headspace and 5 minutes of shaking you can hit 8. White labs did a test and found that five minutes of shaking yields 2.47. I've become convinced the only way to get optimal levels is with oxygen, so I'm heading that way, although my five minute shakes have given me good results. Yes, we're talking about the difference between "good" and "optimal", and the result on my palate may be indiscernible. But with other aspects of the process well-controlled, why not optimize the oxygenation process and see what happens? It's not like it'll cost me an arm and a leg.

If you make a starter at least 24 hours prior to pitching isn't most of the reproduction done and that's why fermentation begins so much faster. I make starters and drain into my fermenter just by opening up the spigot on my kettle letting it splash into fermenter.

I've been homebrewing for 5 years and have never used O2. I usually splash or shake and all my beer turn out just fine. Pure O2 injection would seem very efficient, but not necessary IMHO. As a previous poster said, we have thousands of years of successful brewing tradition with using pure O2.

beerhappy said:

I've been homebrewing for 5 years and have never used O2. I usually splash or shake and all my beer turn out just fine. Pure O2 injection would seem very efficient, but not necessary IMHO. As a previous poster said, we have thousands of years of successful brewing tradition with using pure O2.

Click to expand...

You won't get anyone to disagree that it's unnecessary. That's certainly true. But then homebrewing is also unnecessary!

MazdaMatt said:

I was discussing this with a friend of mine last night. I'm no pro brewer, but I've done 6-8 beer brews and a few batches of wine. It strikes me as silly that anybody would take a thousands-of-years-old craft and say that you MUST use clinical grade oxygen supplimentation or you're missing out.

Click to expand...

It's equally as silly to say "It's been done this way for thousands of years, so why try to improve the process?"


I use oxygen, starters, and stir plates. Convince me otherwise.

IMO, temp control is a more important variable, but proper oxygenation has given me shorter lag times, faster and more complete fermentations, and never had a stuck fermentation with it. It's part of my process and not a step to skip in MY PROCESS.

MazdaMatt said:

I was discussing this with a friend of mine last night. I'm no pro brewer, but I've done 6-8 beer brews and a few batches of wine. It strikes me as silly that anybody would take a thousands-of-years-old craft and say that you MUST use clinical grade oxygen supplimentation or you're missing out.

By all means convince me that I'm crazy.

Click to expand...

You are crazy, and you are missing out. There, I said it.

I started a thread last month addressing this exact bogus philosophy.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f163/i-completely-underestimated-role-oxygen-235663/

For a little background, I had prescribed to the "shaking and splashing must be good enough" philosophy for almost two years. I would say this is the practice used by 95% of the members on this board, so it must be good enough, right? Right? I read the Yeast book, and curiosity got the best of me, so I bought an oxygenation kit from Williams Brewing just to see if "thousands-of-years-old" ideas still = best practice. Read my thread - they do not.

I was doing everything possible to make the best beer I could. Yeast starters, pitching rate, repeatable brewing process, temperature controlled fermentation, excellent cleaning and sanitation - the only thing I was short cutting was oxygenation. What a freaking mistake!

I sampled my third bottle from my first oxygenated batch last night, and at 2-1/2 weeks, it is literally head and shoulders above anything else I have ever made. I was happy with my beer before, but I am thrilled with it now. It is not my first time with this recipe either, and since I dial in fermentation temperatures, and stick with one house yeast, I really eliminate many possible variables batch to batch. The only process change I made was the addition of oxygen. A simple 60 second burst through a diffusion stone right before I pitched.

"But I have just shaken my carboy for years with good results!" is really bad advice. If I see another person couple that statement with RDWHAHB....well....I won't be impressed.

The $45 it costs for an oxygen kit will not break anyone, but who would be willing to buy it if everyone tells them it is unneccessary? I believe this single purchase of an oxygen kit had a bigger positive effect than anything else I have done since I started brewing (excluding sanitation and fermentation temperature control - because those are neccessities, not luxeries).

Buy an oxygen kit - then report your results. I guarantee you will be thrilled you did. It is impossible to critique the effect of oxygen if you have never used it. I have used both methods, and the results were shocking. I guess I just didn't expect too much, because so many freaking people told me it can't make much of a difference!

If you ask me, the crazy person is the one who has never tried a method, yet is confident enough to rip apart its merits.

So who is crazy?

Joe

Some people half-ass many steps in the brewing process and still get beer. I bet even some commercial small breweries do too.

The most successful ones don't though. Control what you can control as best as you possibly can. Or half-ass it. Your choice. Your beer.

MazdaMatt said:

It strikes me as silly that anybody would take a thousands-of-years-old craft and say that you MUST use clinical grade oxygen supplimentation or you're missing out.

Click to expand...

Does this mean that you use the yeast floating around in your back yard?

RenoDean said:

If you make a starter at least 24 hours prior to pitching isn't most of the reproduction done and that's why fermentation begins so much faster. I make starters and drain into my fermenter just by opening up the spigot on my kettle letting it splash into fermenter.

Click to expand...

Excuse the double post, but I couldn't resist.

This was exactly the method I used to follow. I would put my starter on a stir plate 24 hours prior to pitching, and when it was time to get the wort in the carboy, just opened the ball valve and let it rain down and splash around.

It is not enough. If you are happy with your beers using your current process; great (I was too). You will be thrilled with your beers if you add oxygen to your process.

I have discussed in another thread a "house flavor" my beer used to have. I though it was the combination of the brewer, equipment, and water specific to me. The oxygen eliminated the "house flavor". As it turns out, that "house" flavor was really nothing more than an overstressed fermentation. Again, I wish I knew that 25 batches ago.

Joe

Get the aquarium pump kit. I used to do shake-oxygenation until I got sick of long starts and stuck fermentations at about 1.020. 15 minutes of air makes a huge difference.

badmajon said:

Get the aquarium pump kit. I used to do shake-oxygenation until I got sick of long starts and stuck fermentations at about 1.020. 15 minutes of air makes a huge difference.

Click to expand...

And this still limits you to a max of 8ppm. If you're gonna drop the money, why not spend marginally more and get the real mccoy? Only difference in cost is buying the oxygen tanks periodically...

I use a wine degasser on a power drill. It turns the beer almost white with bubbles of air. I get very little lag time, usually about 2 to 4 hours.

I wonder how much oxygen is getting absorbed with this method. I am about to order an oxygen kit and try the difference. I am happy with my beer so far, hopefully this will make it even better.

Randar said:

And this still limits you to a max of 8ppm. If you're gonna drop the money, why not spend marginally more and get the real mccoy? Only difference in cost is buying the oxygen tanks periodically...

Click to expand...

For me it is not cost.

Admittedly I have not seen an accident with oxygen tanks but I also know that oxygen is extremely flammable and can be explosive.

Maybe I'm being overly cautious about oxygen. But it is partially the risk involved that is deterring me.

Reduced lag time actually means a lack of oxygen. I know it sounds crazy but it's true. The basic difference between shaking and pumping air is effort vs. time. Pumping pure O2 increases the amount of oxygen you can get dissolved but the MOST important difference is that it only takes 2 minutes and you don't have to sweat.

Oxygen isn't flammable at all. It just oxidizes other materials that are. I'm not arguing that it's completely harmless but it's no more dangerous than having a propane tank.

Bobby_M said:

Reduced lag time actually means a lack of oxygen. I know it sounds crazy but it's true. The basic difference between shaking and pumping air is effort vs. time. Pumping pure O2 increases the amount of oxygen you can get dissolved but the MOST important difference is that it only takes 2 minutes and you don't have to sweat.

Oxygen isn't flammable at all. It just oxidizes other materials that are. I'm not arguing that it's completely harmless but it's no more dangerous than having a propane tank.

Click to expand...

True re: oxygen and flammability; it exacerbates existing situations. I guess some of it depends on where you store it - i.e. not in the kitchen.

Bobby_M said:

Pumping pure O2 increases the amount of oxygen you can get dissolved but the MOST important difference is that it only takes 2 minutes and you don't have to sweat.

Click to expand...

What I think is even more important is that you don't have to set down your beer to do it. Yeah it's only 2 minutes but there are 2 fermenters to fill. That's 4 minutes!!!! A guy could die of thirst.

Joe,

Thanks for you input. Very insightful. I'd love to cross-check your beer to see what you mean by "house flavour" and taste the difference between having it and not having it. It would be great to split a brew in half and oxygenate one and not the other so EVERYTHING is the same except O2. I'll keep an open mind, but it seems like sharpening a razor blade to cut the butter to me.

Others,

Don't get me wrong, I never once said that what's been done for thousands of years is absolutely the way it should be done and is inarguably the best method - just that from what I've read O2 seems to solve problems that I've never had. Nice that it saves time and effort, but personally I've got more time and strength than money so that argument is moot.

cfonnes,

Yeah, honestly, i'd like to try that with a brew and see what happens.

Bobby_M said:

Reduced lag time actually means a lack of oxygen. I know it sounds crazy but it's true.

Click to expand...

What is the reasoning behind this? Is it that if there is not enough oxygen, the yeast start to ferment rather than reproduce?

Yeast are living organisms that need oxygen to survive just like plants. Yes plants will grow without supplemental O2 but giving them more oxygen will make them grow faster and more healthy. Just like yeast.

After brew day we are just "Yeast Keepers". Give them what they want and they will produce for you.

BendBrewer said:

Yeast are living organisms that need oxygen to survive just like plants. Yes plants will grow without supplemental O2 but giving them more oxygen will make them grow faster and more healthy. Just like yeast.

After brew day we are just "Yeast Keepers". Give them what they want and they will produce for you.

Click to expand...

True enough but yeast (as I understand it) are facultative anaerobes. They can function with or without oxygen. From what I have read they reproduce in the aerobic setting. So I'm curious about the statement about lag time...

Bobby_M said:

Reduced lag time actually means a lack of oxygen. I know it sounds crazy but it's true.

Click to expand...

This from Wyeast seems to contradict that Bobby, unless I'm misinterpreting or oversimplifying your statement. More trub for synthesis of sterols and fatty acids reduces the amount of O2 needed, but if we count the growth phase as part and parcel of lag time, yeast need 02 in this phase.

The factors that can keep the yeast from fermenting are: temperatures too low or too high at run-in, no oxygenation at run-in, pitch rates too low, or a very unhealthy yeast culture. The most common problem is the run-in temperature. If the temperature was too low, warm up the wort. If the temperature was too high, the culture is most likely irreversibly damaged and you need to pitch more yeast immediately. Oxygenation and agitation will also stimulate the yeast and speed the onset of fermentation.

I read Wyeast and Bobby stating the same thing.

The way I read it, "the onset of fermentation" and "lag time" are the same thing and so the statements seem to offer different opinions.

Am I interpreting this correctly?

Ah, I see now.

I've always thought short lag times were a good thing. It seemed to me that the yeast had completed the growth and adaptation phase and were ready to begin their work. I still consider this fermentation. It's probably semantics at this point. I still like short lag times, seems intuitive that things are progressing nicely, assuming wort quality is good. Palmer offers a little insight:

A very short lagtime, for example, does not guarantee an exemplary fermentation and an outstanding beer. A short lagtime only means that initial conditions were favorable for growth and metabolism. It says nothing about the total amount of nutrients in the wort or how the rest of the fermentation will progress.

The latter stages of fermentation may also appear to finish more quickly when in fact the process was not super-efficient, but rather, incomplete. The point is that speed does not necessarily correlate with quality. Of course, under optimal conditions a fermentation would be more efficient and thus take less time. But it is better to pay attention to the fermentation conditions and getting the process right, rather than to a rigid time schedule.

Great discussion. I've got my process down so that post-boil, the wort never sees "open air". I allow the wort to splash back into the kettle during CFC recirculation and have hoped that was good enough. Now I certainly could slip a stone down into the airlock hole to do an O2 charge before sealing the fermenter up, but how the heck does one maintain confidence the stone is sanitary? To my mind, cleaning a porous stone must be a challenge...

ayoungrad said:

For me it is not cost.

Admittedly I have not seen an accident with oxygen tanks but I also know that oxygen is extremely flammable and can be explosive.

Maybe I'm being overly cautious about oxygen. But it is partially the risk involved that is deterring me.

Click to expand...

I also had some reservations with the safety of the oyxgen tanks, but I found out that the tanks we are using are only 2oz of O2 at a low pressure. These things are not your high pressure industrial tanks of doom. I still would not store it in my oven or on my stove, but anywhere away from heat should be fine.

They are tanks just like the little camp stove propane tanks, and both just sit by the dozen on store shelves. If they were dangerous just sitting there, no retailer would carry them inside.

MazdaMatt said:

It strikes me as silly that anybody would take a thousands-of-years-old craft and say that you MUST use clinical grade oxygen supplimentation or you're missing out.

Click to expand...

Shall we then ignore the discovery and optimization of brewing yeast, or the science behind saccharification, or any other brewing-related component of the Scientific Revolution? None of these are ESSENTIAL for making beer. You can either use technology to rationally improve your process, or you can mix up some sugar-water and let it sit in a corner while you do a rain dance or pray to Ninkappy or whomever.

ayoungrad said:

Admittedly I have not seen an accident with oxygen tanks but I also know that oxygen is extremely flammable and can be explosive.

Click to expand...

Don't use it indoors, and make sure your burner is turned off. It's perfectly safe otherwise.

jfowler1 said:

I sampled my third bottle from my first oxygenated batch last night, and at 2-1/2 weeks, it is literally head and shoulders above anything else I have ever made. I was happy with my beer before, but I am thrilled with it now. It is not my first time with this recipe either, and since I dial in fermentation temperatures, and stick with one house yeast, I really eliminate many possible variables batch to batch. The only process change I made was the addition of oxygen. A simple 60 second burst through a diffusion stone right before I pitched.

Click to expand...

I am an oxygen evangelist. Since adopting O2 I have also eliminated "house flavors" and have not had a single stuck fermentation out of over 20 batches. Proper oxygenation - along with starters, sanitation, and temperature control - is critical to a healthy fermentation. Without a healthy fermentation you won't get high-quality beer. Can you get a healthy ferment by shaking? Sure. But O2 will help ensure you get it consistently. Ultimately it's a question of whether you want your beer to be merely drinkable (or not) or if you want to really knock it out of the park.

jkarp said:

To my mind, cleaning a porous stone must be a challenge...

Click to expand...

Boil it in water for ~10 minutes, then dunk it in sanitizer until it's ready for use.

If anyone still has doubts about using O2 stones, go to your local brewery and ask how they do it.

I have no outdoor options. Would you then suggest an aquarium pump set-up?

In re: the science of oxygen and yeast. Apparently oxygen inhibits fermentation (Pasteur effect). So in the presence of oxygen the yeast are aerobes. And I believe this is when they reproduce. So lag time is probably a function of the amount of oxygen and the number of yeast cells. Once there are enough healthy yeast cells AND no more inhibitory oxygen, fermentation will start.

But in the absence of oxygen would you end up with the correct number of cells, some of which are unhealthy, or would you get too few cells trying to do too much work. Based on my knowledge, I would think it's the later.

I guess it doesn't matter. I just think its interesting.

jkarp said:

Great discussion. I've got my process down so that post-boil, the wort never sees "open air". I allow the wort to splash back into the kettle during CFC recirculation and have hoped that was good enough. Now I certainly could slip a stone down into the airlock hole to do an O2 charge before sealing the fermenter up, but how the heck does one maintain confidence the stone is sanitary? To my mind, cleaning a porous stone must be a challenge...

Click to expand...

Some say boiling is good for cleaning. And I'm under the impression that positive pressure on the stone prior to putting it into any liquid keeps the liquid on the exterior and out of the pores. The only time I don't pressurize the stone is when I soak it in a bucket of starsan. I start the O2 before I remove the wand from the sanitizer and submerge the stone in the wort. I keep the 02 flowing while I rinse in hot water. Rinse, repeat. So far so good.

Does anyone here use and store their O2 indoors? I live in a highrise condo with no outside space.

I'm getting the vibe from some of the "oxygination evangelists" that you either oxygenate or you get crap beer. Sorry folks, but you're just not turning my crank with that argument. I've done some college rental house basement brewing with no more knowledge than what's written on the Coopers can (which doesn't even tell me to shake it or wet the yeast!) and I got decent beer every time with no delays, no stuck ferm, no infection.

I can certainly understand if you're taking your beer to competitions and your automated brewing system doesn't slosh the beer at all, or if you're a microbrewery and you need to pump out beer as quickly as possible... but for joe basement-brew the basics will totally hack it.

I'm going to go read Joe's thread about it and see if he changes my mind.

ayoungrad said:

Does anyone here use and store their O2 indoors? I live in a highrise condo with no outside space.

Click to expand...

I do, in my garage. Oxygen is not flammable. Oxygen is not dangerous. Misuse of oxygen is dangerous. My tank valve remains shut until the cooling phase of brewing which means no flames anywhere.

MazdaMatt said:

I'm getting the vibe from some of the "oxygination evangelists" that you either oxygenate or you get crap beer. Sorry folks, but you're just not turning my crank with that argument. I've done some college rental house basement brewing with no more knowledge than what's written on the Coopers can (which doesn't even tell me to shake it or wet the yeast!) and I got decent beer every time with no delays, no stuck ferm, no infection.

I can certainly understand if you're taking your beer to competitions and your automated brewing system doesn't slosh the beer at all, or if you're a microbrewery and you need to pump out beer as quickly as possible... but for joe basement-brew the basics will totally hack it.

I'm going to go read Joe's thread about it and see if he changes my mind.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's either/or. I think it's simply a matter of controlling every variable one can during the brewing process. God knows there are enough that are not controllable.

Well, S. Cervisiae is both aerobic and anaerobic. And also has a very short reproductive cycle. Average doubling of ~1 to ~2 hours.

Basically, under aerobic conditions the yeast sythesises the sterols needed for cell wall production in budding. However, these sterols can be provided without Oxygen by providing Linoleic Acid. During this phase, aerobic, the byproduct is primarily CO2.

BUT, once reproduction is complete and Oxygen is depleted the yeast do go into anaerobic phase and the byproduct is primarily Ethanol.

So, the balance shift of the byproducts is driven by the presence of Oxygen. If Oxygen is not present but the acid needed for sterol synthesis is there would be less CO2 production as a result.