I knew Aeration Equipment is a Waste of $...

SSBrew - 728
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.
2-0turbo said:
Okay, maybe not. I honestly can't measure the level of dissolved O2 in my wort and I don't know how many PPM it is. It is not obvious to me that they are using 8 PPM as "100%". If you reread the original abstract, that is not what he said.
Click to expand...
If you read the methods section, that is exactly what they say they do.

Measurement of Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen content of the cooled water was measured using a Yellow Springs Instruments (YSI) Model 57 dissolved oxygen meter equipped with a YSI Model 5739 probe, calibrated with water-saturated air, prior to each set of experiments.
Click to expand...

According to wyeast, that corresponds to around 8 ppm. Which is sub-optimal.

It was concluded that pumping compressed air through a stone is not an efficient way to provide adequate levels of DO. Traditional splashing and shaking, although laborious, is fairly efficient at dissolving up to 8 ppm oxygen. To increase levels of oxygen, the carboy headspace can be purged with pure oxygen prior to shaking. The easiest and most effective method remains injecting pure oxygen through a scintered stone.
Click to expand...

(although on that page they say yeast need "at least 10 ppm dO". In their slide presentation, 28 ppm is optimal for e.g. a pale ale).

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

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather trust wyeast than a guy doing a 6th grade science fair project.
 
Synovia said:
It wouldn't be the first time big business was wasting tons of money simply because that's the way its always been done.

Suggesting that it must be helpful because they wouldn't do it otherwise is just an appeal to authority.
Click to expand...

Everyone appeals to authority with most things in life. Do you go to medical school to know how to treat a disease you acquire? No, you listen to your doctor or ask a few of them because they have the experience and access to the studies. A huge brewery that needs to find the cheapest way to do something will go out of their way to find it.
 
2-0turbo said:
And I don't believe that blowing O2 through your wort does much. Why do we make yeast starters on stir plates? Why don't we make yeast starters with O2 stones and bubblers?
Click to expand...

I DO inject O2 into my starters before I start stirring.

Did you not see the data I posted that Wyeast collected on the various doubling in yeast colonies per oxygen concentration? If concentration doesn't matter, how do you account for the difference in colony growth?

8ppm is saturation at atmospheric partial pressure so I'm quite sure the linked study was using that figure as 100%.

From http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/water/oxygen/oxygen-and-water.htm
Water solubility of oxygen at 25oC and pressure = 1 bar is at 40 mg/L water. In air with a normal composition the oxygen partial pressure is 0.2 atm. This results in dissolution of 40 . 0.2 = 8 mg O2/L in water that comes in contact with air.
Click to expand...
 
BioBeing said:
If you read the methods section, that is exactly what they say they do.
Click to expand...

Perhaps--I agree, it appears that is what they did. It would be nice if the paper stated what the "saturated level" was so you could compare them.

According to wyeast, that corresponds to around 8 ppm. Which is sub-optimal.
Click to expand...

My beer has been turning out okay.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather trust wyeast than a guy doing a 6th grade science fair project.
Click to expand...

I think the paper was okay--you don't have to insults the guys intelligence. It is apparent that he has done more experimenting that you and I. Not the best, but it provides, if nothing else, stimulating discussion. I guess that is the great thing about this hobby is there is a lot of ways to accomplish the same thing.
 
BioBeing said:
Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather trust wyeast than a guy doing a 6th grade science fair project.
Click to expand...

This experiment is not much different than what a big corp would do, it's just that the big corps have access to 8th grade science equipment, this guy only had access to 6th grade equipment apparently. You have to understand though that this experiment was not designed to be entirely conclusive, I think it really just serves as a good starting point for discussion (which I am glad to see this thread is generating a healthy bit of it.) All I'm saying is don't discredit the guy for trying his best with what he had. We as home brewers run makeshift experiments all the time to draw conclusions without the slightest bit of quantitative data. Our methods are purely qualitative like some of Bobby_M's experiments, for example I think he had a video of one where he tested various pitching rates of yeast. For the home brewer Bobby's experiment provides some great insight, but for Wyeast Laboratories the results might be a little out of their confidence interval. Ultimately, the same applies to this study.

This guy presents an experiment that results in a theory (not a law), the theory is accepted until it is disproved, that is how science works. You take what the last guy said, change some variables and build off of that.

For me, I am a 5 gallon, partial mash brewer, this study, IMO, relates directly to the way I brew and I tend to agree that for a 5 gallon batch shaking a carboy could be the most efficient (most DO in the shortest amount of time) method for aerating wort. Using air stones might result in even higher levels of DO over a longer period of exposure, and that might be the best method for anybody brewing more than 5 gallons at a time. As someone mentioned earlier there's a fat chance any of us are going to pick up 10 gallons or more let alone shake it for 5 minutes.
 
babalu87 said:
Losing the battle is stating that wort doesnt need to be aerated.
Click to expand...
That's not my argument, dude. That's the other guy.

All I said is the study wasn't meaningless. It's not a PhD thesis, but its not meaningless. Its more accurate if the beer is smaller. Its less accurate if the beer is big.

Sure, higher SG means the boiling point is higher. Sure its tougher to reaerate DO into wort than water because of the higher SG. Sure there is sugar, DMS, FAN, and other things in wort besides water. Sure wort gets a 60 - 180 minute boil.

But non of those will cause a radical departure from their experiment to reality. It might push the graph to the left. It might push the graph up. But I doubt it is likely to significantly change the characteristics of the curve for using air with the goal of obtaining 8ppm DO.

And as far as using pure O2. Using air, 8ppm is the max anyone will get. Absolutely you will get more DO with pure oxygen, you can actually get up to 30ppm. How much DO and how fast depends upon your diffusion method, and how long you leave it in there. However if you get close to 30ppm DO, you risk damaging the yeast cell walls (http://***********/stories/wizard/a...xygen-canisters-safe-for-homebrewing-aeration)

The bottom line for me, I'm not overly worried about optimum yeast growth. My beer doesn't have a deadline.
 
I have read alot of these articles and I go with what has worked for me. I aerate the starter and I aerate the wort. I also pitch dry yeast to a starter. I use a simple aquarium pump for aeration because I am too damn lazy to measure the amount of oxygen to aerate with. Brew day is long enough and complicated enough to worry about this stuff.
 
If you are happy with aeration and low levels of oxygen, then this study tells you that shaking your fermentor is the fastest way to get there.

If, on the other hand, you are looking to make the best beer possible, then this study actually tells you very little. In fact, it might even confuse you (as it appears to have done some here) and suggest to you that shaking is as good as oxygenation. And that would be wrong.

So, this study is good enough as far as it goes. Wyeast have done everything this guy has done AND MORE. They have blind taste tests to show that, for a pale ale, 28 ppm was preferred over 8 ppm. [For a lager, lower ppms were preferred.] Why not take the Wyeast study as the more authoritative of the two?

And that's all I'm going to say on this subject.
 
Bobby_M said:
Everyone appeals to authority with most things in life. Do you go to medical school to know how to treat a disease you acquire? No, you listen to your doctor or ask a few of them because they have the experience and access to the studies. A huge brewery that needs to find the cheapest way to do something will go out of their way to find it.
Click to expand...

I work in a hospital. When I talk to doctors, I ask for references and do my own research.


Just because a brewery is looking to cut cost, doesn't mean they're doing things in the most effective manner. If everyone was doing things in the most effective manner, progress and innovation wouldn't be possible.
 
I have nothing to add, other than this thread should be moved to the debate forum.

Can't believe that people are arguing over this.

Actually, I can.
 
Why would this be moved to the debate forum? It's specifically tied to brewing and practices widely held. We can't debate about brewing on the general brewing forums anymore?
 
Bobby_M said:
Why would this be moved to the debate forum? It's specifically tied to brewing and practices widely held. We can't debate about brewing on the general brewing forums anymore?
Click to expand...

Sorry Bobby, should have thrown a :D in there somewhere.

I just find it amusing that people would actually suggest that major breweries would waste money and research to do something that wasn't needed. Or that people get worked up about this to the extent that some do.
 
I'd like to believe the ultimate goal is to make the best beer possible and some of the frustrations and heated opinions are based on the lack of real conclusive one-size-fits-all data. Like, we all know not to put dog **** in the fermenter. If only all other choices were that obvious. I know, next post will be someone arguing that dog **** in the fermenter has never been a problem.
 
Despite some good dialogue in this thread, here's what I have to say to the rest of it:

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Click to expand...

:D :D

(isn't it time for another glass v. BB debate, or liquid v. dry yeast) :D
 
Nobody requires that anyone else read a particular thread. Why screw it up with useless inane banter about feces?
 
I'm amazed (and not in a good way) by many of the opinions expressed in this thread.
He conducted some experiments to determine the efficacy of some but not all commonly used methods of introducing O2 into liquid, and concluded that of the methods he tested rocking and shaking was the most efficacious.
He used water instead of wort for his experiments, but addressed the probable differences in the DISCUSSION section.
If you read http://maltosefalcons.com/tech/yeast-propagation-and-maintenance-principles-and-practices you will find that his findings pretty much agree with hers.
I admit that there is a very small possibility that both of their studies could be wrong, but I think this is very unlikely.

-a.
 
remilard said:
The study wasn't bad, the incorrect conclusions drawn in the OP were.
Click to expand...

remilard, I don't think I drew any conclusions but please elaborate...




I was thinking of adding a poll for this thread just for a goof...What shoudl the options be:

How do you aerate your wort?
1.)Shake carboy?
2.) Air-stone no O2 system
3.) Air-stone + O2 system
4.)?
5.)Don't aerate
Give me some ideas, I'll post the poll up after I get some feedback.
 
A poll would be meaningless. Who cares how everyone else is doing it?

What we need is for someone to step forward and perform some tests. Someone with some testing equipment.

Surely in this day and age of homebrewing, there must be someone who can do this? Maybe the guys on the radio show can find a scientist with some stuff that can measure the DO in wort...
 
Homercidal said:
What we need is for someone to step forward and perform some tests. Someone with some testing equipment.

Surely in this day and age of homebrewing, there must be someone who can do this? Maybe the guys on the radio show can find a scientist with some stuff that can measure the DO in wort...
Click to expand...

Measuring DO in any dilute aqueous solution isn't hard. Hach makes a nice hand-held DO meter for $648.
 
I happen to know one of our HBT folks who owns a DO meter. I'll give y'all one guess as to who it is :D

He's also quite the experimental type, so I'm sure we'll hear some of his research in the future. Unless he writes a book instead.
 
the_bird said:
I happen to know one of our HBT folks who owns a DO meter. I'll give y'all one guess as to who it is :D

He's also quite the experimental type, so I'm sure we'll hear some of his research in the future. Unless he writes a book instead.
Click to expand...

well, will the book be in english or german? :D
 
Real world results will tell me everything I need to know. I used to rock the carboy, then got sick & tired of doing it - plus it's tricky with Better Bottles. I got a plastic whip like this, chuck it in a drill, have a good ol' time whippin' it up and have seen much shorter lag times to fermentation. As was suggested earlier, split a ten gal. batch into two carboys, aerate one as much as possible and the other as little as possible and watch the results.

If you've ever split a batch and had one carboy where the yeast wasn't viable (you took a chance, even though the starter didn't seem to take off like you had hoped, you used dry yeast past it's prime, you got some of that bad lot of Notty), then added yeast a few days later, you know that it never takes off like the healthy batch that got the yeast pitched right after aeration.

Carry on.
 
remilard said:
Does kaiser even post here anymore? I think ya'll ran him off, he posts more frequently elsewhere.

Either way, the tests have been done.

http://www.wyeastlab.com/hb_oxygenation.cfm
Click to expand...

Since when should we trust the yeast labs? Next thing you know and people will stop making starters from their "pitchable" vials and smack packs.

Fault lines will crack, Volcanoes erupt, Dinosaurs re-emerge, it'll be chaos.
 
Shorter lag time can't equal more DO. I don't put a hell of a lot of effort into aeration and almost all my lag times are less than 16 hours.

With my Export I didn't make a starter or put any extra effort into aerating and the airlock was popping in under 5 hours.

If I ever run I into issues with insufficient aeration, it most likely shows up in stuck fermentations. But pitching a new starter almost always fixes that.

I might be able to access some DO meters. However, I'd never put them in anything that I was planning on drinking. They tend to get used downstream of industrial or municipal wastewater dischargers.

Update: talked to our lab guys. I could probably bring samples in on the weekend and test them. But it would mean making a sacrificial batch because the probe would infect enything it was put in. And at best I could do a curve for simple supply of pure O2 through a hose.

The remaining problem: I don't have an O2 supply unless I steal one of my mother's oxygen tank. If I'm not going to hell already, I'd be sure to secure a spot there if I tried it.

Anyone else in SLC have an O2 supply?
 
Finally had a chance to read the study.

Just bad, lazy "science".

1. Only did one trial for each method; why? You really drawing scientific conclusions without multiple tests

2. Why not just add a little DME to the water, to similate a typical wort? There's no reason to expect that wort is going to behave identically to pure water. Lazy to not at least make a simple wort.

3. Why not do a full, 60-minute boil? If you're doing an experiment related to brewing, why not actually, you know, simulate brewing conditions? Why not start our with water (or ideally, WORT) that's likely had almost all of its O2 driven off?

4. Why not study the use of pure O2, rather than just aerating? The author acknowledges as such:

The infusion of pressurized pure oxygen into wort is undoubtedly another effective means of raising the wort oxygen content. However, there are added costs associated with the use of pure oxygen, and there is some risk of toxicity to the yeast from over-oxygenating wort. Saturating wort with pure oxygen is likely to be toxic to the yeast. Thus, some means of monitoring the oxygen content of the wort or of controlling the amount of oxygen delivered to the wort would appear to be necessary. Testing the relative effectiveness of aerating with air versus pure oxygen would be a reasonable and useful addition to experiments presented here.
Click to expand...

Not buying the argument that "well, you POSSIBLY could add too much O2" as being a reason not to use pure O2. Not much risk of that with a 30-second hit from an O2 canister.

In the end, what's the conclusion? You can sufficiently aerate (water) by shaking a carboy for five or ten minutes? Who the **** wants to shake a carboy for five or ten minutes?

Just a horribly flawed study. Doesn't actually test wort or brewing conditions. Intentionally excludes valid methods. Does not run multiple experiments. Inconclusive conclusion.

The only thing this study proves is that just because you include a graph does not make your paper any more valid.
 
I'd have to sacrifice anything I took into the lab because of what the lab normally tests. I'd have to split off at least a gallon for each aeration method. I'd probably have to do the aeration at the lab. Which means each gallon I take there will go down the drain.

Saturating the wort with air before the experiment wouldn't be difficult. I'd have to drive it 30 minutes from my house to the lab. Which raises an interesting idea. Instead of rocking the carboy, I could strap it in the cargo area of my car and take it for a ride.

I've been thinking about a pure O2 experiment some more. It really isn't an interesting experiment to figure out the curve for transferring pure O2 into a wort or water. If you assume 100% efficiency, it's a straight forward calculation based upon the flow rate of O2 and the desired concentration of DO.

Efficiency will primarily depend upon the size of the bubble. The bigger the bubble, the less efficient.

To estimate your efficiency you could use a plastic bucket with two holes drilled in it. Run your O2 line into one of the holes. Slap an open airlock with a ballon on the end of it on the other side. After aerating:

Volume O2(in) - Volume O2(ballon) = Volume O2(wort)

Then use the Volume O2(wort) to calculate the concentration of DO. Of course you'd need some sort of pressure gage on the ballon or some way to estimate it.

The interesting experiment would be determining DO vs. Fermentation Time and DO vs. Beer Quality. That's really what people would be most interested in. And besides not having the O2, I don't have the fermentation control that would be necessary to do that experiment.
 
Bringing water to a boil for several minutes will effectively drive of most of the oxygen. Oxygen dissolves in water inverse to the temp. (i.e. cold water more oxygen). I agree no repeatable tests leave much to be desired.

As a control the cooled water should have had the O2 measured over time just to see how much O2 the water will absorb out of the atmosphere just through absorption.

Also as noted above the freshly boiled water should have ahd the O2 level measured to get a true time =0 line reading.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top