I am going to try this. Thanks for the explanation.
Interesting German Brewing PDF
- Thread starter rabeb25
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
I am going to try this. Thanks for the explanation.
i plead the 5th.
ParanoidAndroid
Well-Known Member
The recommendations say to use before any finings. I've been using Brewtan at 16-17 minutes, then Irish Moss at 15 minutes, then Wyeast Yeast Nutrient at 10 minutes. All in separate warm slurries.
Do you have a link to the recommendations you speak of? I found wildy different instructions when i searched around.
stpug
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,808
- Reaction score
- 767
Thanks for finding down that exact page enkamania! I'm going to quote it below just so it's in this thread directly.
edit: moved to post further down
Where are you folks getting Brewtan B from? A quick Google search didn't turn up anything.
Airmail from Australia (www.ibrew.com.au) .... turns out with the exchange rate what it is, its actually pretty cheap!
I came across that thread/dosage information too but it conflicts significantly with everything i've seen from the manufacturer. For one, they don't specify quantity in teaspoons. Also as a general policy, I immediately disregard any advice that involves teaspoons or tablespoon measurements because its going to be wildly variable.
stpug
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,808
- Reaction score
- 767
I agree that the dosage recommendations seem to be pretty scattered in terms of quantities and timing depending on what source you use. I also agree with measurements using tsp/tbsp when clearly these are substances that should be measured by weight. I bake, therefore I much prefer to use weight and I recognize it's importance in such instances. I do not have BtB but foresee getting some at some point this year, and would like to have a reliable dosage and instructions prior to using. Are you willing to share what have you been able to come up with?
Basically what I've see is the Denny/Joe dosage advice from the AHA forum way that uses teaspoons (see below). The experimental brewing igor experiment dosage suggestions (see below). The Wyeast package instructions (see below). Finally, the ajinomoto pdf dosage instructions (see below).
AHA Forum Recommendation:
Experimental Brewing Recommends:
Wyeast Recommends:
Ajinomoto Recommends:
Cavpilot2000
Well-Known Member
So I finally broke down and read the article.
Not a bad read, if you want to get into the additional complexity and equipment requirements of LoDO, and I am sure that it produces good beer (possibly even subjectively "better" than without such practices),
but...
I take issue with the article's suggestion that LoDO brewing, especially the methods supported by the article, is what gives German brews their characteristic flavors.
Why?
- Because German brewers 150+ years ago were not milling their grains under a blanket of inert gas.
- They were not likely de-gassing their brewing water prior to use (that I cannot say for certian, but it seems incredibly unlikely and I would ask someone to show some evidence that they were doing it)
- They were not sulfiting their mash water (that would violate Reinheitsgebot)
- They were not measuring their dissolved gas (most German styles were developed and gained their flavor characteristics prior to the understanding of oxygen)
And finally, as the article so politely points out: "Professional, modern brewing systems such as those manufactured by Krones
have a variety of measures in place to keep oxygen in check."
Indicating that this is a modern procedure (yes there were some early precursor procedures that resemble current LoDO practices, and may have had the effect of reducing oxygen exposure, but they were not aimed specifically at limiting oxygen).
So in a nutshell, I'm not knocking LoDO as a technique, but people acting like it's the second coming for beer are being a little hyperbolic, with some posters here going so far as to basically suggest that if you aren't using LoDO, you cannot make a decent beer (because, you know, prior to the advent of these processes, everything made by home brewers was pure garbage (yes, there is plenty of garbage homebrew, but a lot of it is very good too)).
And to suggest that LoDO processes are responsible for the flavor profiles of traditional old-world beers is ludicrous.
Okay, defenders of the LoDO faith flame on...
Not a bad read, if you want to get into the additional complexity and equipment requirements of LoDO, and I am sure that it produces good beer (possibly even subjectively "better" than without such practices),
but...
I take issue with the article's suggestion that LoDO brewing, especially the methods supported by the article, is what gives German brews their characteristic flavors.
Why?
- Because German brewers 150+ years ago were not milling their grains under a blanket of inert gas.
- They were not likely de-gassing their brewing water prior to use (that I cannot say for certian, but it seems incredibly unlikely and I would ask someone to show some evidence that they were doing it)
- They were not sulfiting their mash water (that would violate Reinheitsgebot)
- They were not measuring their dissolved gas (most German styles were developed and gained their flavor characteristics prior to the understanding of oxygen)
And finally, as the article so politely points out: "Professional, modern brewing systems such as those manufactured by Krones
have a variety of measures in place to keep oxygen in check."
Indicating that this is a modern procedure (yes there were some early precursor procedures that resemble current LoDO practices, and may have had the effect of reducing oxygen exposure, but they were not aimed specifically at limiting oxygen).
So in a nutshell, I'm not knocking LoDO as a technique, but people acting like it's the second coming for beer are being a little hyperbolic, with some posters here going so far as to basically suggest that if you aren't using LoDO, you cannot make a decent beer (because, you know, prior to the advent of these processes, everything made by home brewers was pure garbage (yes, there is plenty of garbage homebrew, but a lot of it is very good too)).
And to suggest that LoDO processes are responsible for the flavor profiles of traditional old-world beers is ludicrous.
Okay, defenders of the LoDO faith flame on...
Let's keep this professional, impersonal and fact based...
No one said the german beers of 150+ years ago are the same that they make today. In fact it's pretty much guaranteed that all beers prior to ~1900 were at least somewhat soured.
Yes low oxygen is a relatively modern thing.... if you think about it, the vast majority of advances in science... chemistry, biology, physics, etc have happened in the last 100 years. The fundamentals of all modern science is only a few hundred years old really. That should be put in perspective.
The quote is that you cannot make a decent Helles. The PDF goes no further than to say that. Some styles wouldn't taste right if made low oxygen (e.g. british styles).
^^^ No one said that. Where did you get that idea?
Great post! You just dug up every source i've ever found and did a great job summarizing them. +1
Wish i had more to add.
stpug
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,808
- Reaction score
- 767
So I finally broke down and read the article.
Nice! It's too bad the PDF article was so alienating and elitist, otherwise it may have had better traction earlier on.
Not a bad read, if you want to get into the additional complexity and equipment requirements of LoDO, and I am sure that it produces good beer (possibly even subjectively "better" than without such practices),
but...
Maybe, but you can just as easily produce dumpers using it's methods.
I take issue with the article's suggestion that LoDO brewing, especially the methods supported by the article, is what gives German brews their characteristic flavors.
I didn't read that in the article. What I read was that our (as peon homebrewers) best methods of achieving that German beer character was the elimination of oxygen ingress at all points in the brewing process, and then they went on to outline a precise set of steps for us to follow. It's too bad they described the changes as basically an "all or nothing" because they are not. You get incremental change in the finished beer with incremental change in the process/system.
Why?
- Because German brewers 150+ years ago were not milling their grains under a blanket of inert gas.
True!
- They were not likely de-gassing their brewing water prior to use (that I cannot say for certian, but it seems incredibly unlikely and I would ask someone to show some evidence that they were doing it)
Yeah, I don't really know either. It's not a stretch to think that they could have preboiled brew water, but I don't know that either.
- They were not sulfiting their mash water (that would violate Reinheitsgebot)
I think you're right about that - as far as I understand that law.
- They were not measuring their dissolved gas (most German styles were developed and gained their flavor characteristics prior to the understanding of oxygen)
For sure; no DO meters around back then.
And finally, as the article so politely points out: "Professional, modern brewing systems such as those manufactured by Krones
have a variety of measures in place to keep oxygen in check."
Indicating that this is a modern procedure (yes there were some early precursor procedures that resemble current LoDO practices, and may have had the effect of reducing oxygen exposure, but they were not aimed specifically at limiting oxygen).
Absolutely! Those are modern brew rigs that can do that.
So in a nutshell, I'm not knocking LoDO as a technique, but people acting like it's the second coming for beer are being a little hyperbolic, with some posters here going so far as to basically suggest that if you aren't using LoDO, you cannot make a decent beer (because, you know, prior to the advent of these processes, everything made by home brewers was pure garbage (yes, there is plenty of garbage homebrew, but a lot of it is very good too)).
Not all people act like it's "the second coming for beer". It's definitely a different road but it leads to the same end destination (i.e. beer). I like to think that I make great beer, and I've made some poor beer also. I've made both kinds (good/bad) using standard brewing methods and low oxygen brewing methods.
And to suggest that LoDO processes are responsible for the flavor profiles of traditional old-world beers is ludicrous.
Absolutely!
Okay, defenders of the LoDO faith flame on...
Tueday
All valid points cavpilot2000. The PDF did a MAJOR disservice to the low oxygen brewing process in it's presentation. That's too bad, but oh well. If a person can recognize the shortcomings in the PDF (and painstakingly ignore them) and interpret what is being suggested, then that person might choose to try some of the steps. Through the process of trying stuff yourself, you get the best feel for whether any of what you're doing is helping/hurting or making no difference; at which point you re-evaluate and move forward either in a new direction or with changes to the process. For me, it's when I try things for myself that I'm best able to determine if these things/processes/ingredients/yeasts/etc are something that work for me in my brewing environment. I'm a do-er; I can't just take someones word for it (and damn does it hurt sometimes
).One point that I feel I should make is that the low oxygen brewing process is not trying to recreate an end product that matches those historic German beers (or beer styles) of 50-100-150-more years ago; it's trying to create an end product that more closely matches the beers of today that are being put out by present-day German breweries. Same end goal but different measuring stick - so-to-speak. Afterall, most homebrewers of today have not tasted a German beer from 1970.
...and the most egregious failure of that PDF was the term 'LODO' (LODO is for DODOs, I like to say).
OP
OP
rabeb25
HE of who can not be spoken of.
I agree with the wording and overall tone of the paper. At the time it didn't seem like it does today to us( well I can only speak for me, so me). I have fought very hard to right those wrongs, and try and make it as easy and incremental as possible. Minimizing oxygen uptake is really an overarching technique, and not a German specific one. If you are curious about the process, I really encourage anyone to check out our new forums, it is not style specific and it's easily digestible for folks.
Cheers.
Cheers.
Faith? The principles and effects of oxygen in brewing are a legitimate science. The sources of such are listed for you to read, even. The methods described by the authors of the PDF are a (rather successful) effort to take advantage of what the science has shown in order to preserve full flavor of the beer.
The methods homebrewers take aren't going to be the same as macro breweries in Germany take, but the effects are all the same, as is the goal.
OP
OP
rabeb25
HE of who can not be spoken of.
I agree with the wording and overall tone of the paper. At the time it didn't seem like it does today to us (well I can only speak for me, so me). I have fought very hard to right those wrongs, and try and make it as easy and incremental as possible. Minimizing oxygen uptake is really an overarching technique, and not a German specific one. If you are curious about the process, I really encourage anyone to check out our new forums, it is not style specific and it's easily digestible for folks.
I actually have a blog article regarding it, here:
http://www.********************/uncategorized/we-now-have-forums/
We keep a running tally our our resources here as well for all to view:
http://www.********************/uncategorized/list-of-brewing-references/
Cheers.
I actually have a blog article regarding it, here:
http://www.********************/uncategorized/we-now-have-forums/
We keep a running tally our our resources here as well for all to view:
http://www.********************/uncategorized/list-of-brewing-references/
Cheers.
...and the most egregious failure of that PDF was the term 'LODO' (LODO is for DODOs, I like to say).
While on the subject, does anyone care to share their view about the proper capitalization (LODO, LoDO, lodo) and the proper verbal pronunciation (low-dough, low-dee-oh, la-dough, low-due)?
OP
OP
rabeb25
HE of who can not be spoken of.
Why not just throw a W in there?....LowDO... which is exactly what it is. Low DO(dissolved oxygen) brewing
This my brewtan B wort, after cold crashing for a few hours. Before the BK addition with 5 minutes to go this one one of the clearer and palest worts i'd ever made.
View attachment ImageUploadedByHome Brew1487127847.068295.jpg
View attachment ImageUploadedByHome Brew1487127862.142723.jpg
I'm thinking it's ****ed and will be shocked if it clears at all. Disgusted.
View attachment ImageUploadedByHome Brew1487127847.068295.jpg
View attachment ImageUploadedByHome Brew1487127862.142723.jpg
I'm thinking it's ****ed and will be shocked if it clears at all. Disgusted.
Yeastieboy
Well-Known Member
I just started lagering my 4th beer brewed using a handful of practices to reduce oxygen hot side (yeast/dextrose, SMB, fresh crushed grains, underletting, gentle recirculating, and no copper). I really am impressed with the outcome, once again. I certainly don't attribute it all to "LoDO" however, I'm becoming more confident these are quite important topics. Even if it's all in my head, that's OK with me. These have been some of the best beers I've made in 5 years.
I mean, I haven't even started employing some of the major aspects of the LoDO method, and my wife already recognizes the term...
I like LoDO best, and I pronounce it low-dough.
You're Bryan right?
I gotta tell you, you should really push the interview with Fermentation Nation. After listening to that podcast and finding out I can get sodium metabisulphite here, I got pretty excited about trying this out in order to improve my beers.
It's low DO for me (pronounced low dee ohh). LODO doesn't make much sense IMO. It is low dissolved oxygen, not "Lo, dissolved oxygen!"
care to elaborate on where you got SMB in Europe. I'll listen to the podcast, but can't pull 2.5 hours right now. I'm in Italy and can't find it anywhere! Never mind how long it took me to find an oxiclean substitute
smb is pretty much all campden powder/tablets sold in the uk, so any uk homebrew shops will sell you it. I'd be amazed if all homebrew shops in the eu didn't sell it either or at least wine making shops
no such luck on the Italian brewing websites that I know of
WiscBrewer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 89
- Reaction score
- 18
I'm starting similar LoDO practices, but haven't tried yeast/dextrose in my strike water as yet. Can someone tell me how much should be used, and what sort of timeframe prior to heating is recommended?
I want to say it was somewhere around 7g sugar and 11g yeast for 8gal water. I know it comes out to about a tbsp of each. I let mine sit overnight sealed up in a cooler.
care to elaborate on where you got SMB in Europe. I'll listen to the podcast, but can't pull 2.5 hours right now. I'm in Italy and can't find it anywhere! Never mind how long it took me to find an oxiclean substitute
Some guy on a Norwegian brewing forum had a 25kg bag said he'd ship ~200g to me for the cost of shipping.
Just make sure the campden tablets aren't potassium.
You can find it on amazon France, Germany, U.K. I didn't check the Italian site, but I do t see why it'd be any different.
there's one on Amazon.it and it ends up being $13 for 50. I may go for it
Cavpilot2000
Well-Known Member
Of course! Was that comment construed as unprofessional or personal? If so, that wasn't the intent - it was meant as colorfully worded call to the loyal and enthusiastic adherents to these techniques and procedures to counter/correct my assertions and assumptions (or possibly devolve into rabid flaming, but I was rather hoping that wouldn't be the case).
Yes, the quote is that you can't make a decent Helles without LoDO.
This is a strong implication that prior to LoDO techniques (an admittedly modern process), there were no decent Helles being made (I would beg to differ - If it weren't decent in the first place, the style would not likely have caught on as if did in the 19th century). Perhaps he should have said you can't make a decent modern version of a Helles without...
This statement, while the only one directly making such an assertion, is couched in the middle of several paragraphs talking about distinct flavor quality and characteristics of Bavarian beers, and the attention to quality that goes into making them.
So while the article does not directly say that LoDO processes are responsible for classic Bavarian beer characteristics, it does so indirectly.
Here is an example of hoe that works:
"Joe is usually a good guy. He is personable, shows up to work on time, and pays his taxes. Joe even tells a good joke or two when he's had a few. But man, I really loathe murderers. Murderers suck, and they should all go to jail, not be walking around in public. I'll probably see Joe at the company Christmas party and I'll have to talk to him."
In that paragraph, I never said Joe was a murderer. I didn't make any connection whatsoever, except to use the term Joe and Murderer in close proximity without any kind of delineation like "not that Joe is a murderer - he isn't". But the end result is that you think I am saying Joe is a murderer.
So when the article starts out praising the virtues of Bavarian beer, then talks about avoiding oxygen being good for beer, then says you can't make a decent Helles (a Bavarian beer) without low oxygen techniques, linguistically, the discussion is couched in an unspoken "you need Lodo to make good examples of Bavarian beer styles", which is an absurd notion, given that those beer styles were created and stylistically defined long before the advent of modern LoDO techniques.
That's all. If it were not the author's intention to suggest that, then he structured the article poorly.
I think there is a great deal of merit to reducing oxygen exposure as much as one chooses to trouble themselves (each brewer has to decide their point of diminishing returns or limits on their equipment and patience).
And you yourself (this isn't getting personal, truly, just answering the question.) recently posted something to the effect that (I'm paraphrasing, but it was a pretty strongly worded statement) if you aren't using LoDO, it's because your untrained palate can't distinguish good beer from swill and go ahead and continue drinking your bucket-fermented, oxidized, still cloudy after four weeks on the cake, etc, etc, crappy beer.
That's what I mean when I say some adherents to the process come off as suggesting (or directly stating) that if you aren't doing this, you can't be producing good beer.
I actually intend to implement some of these practices (but not milling under inert gas - I think that's just laughably ludicrous, but that's just me), but it will be interesting to see if I notice any difference, because I think I am producing excellent quality beer at this time, and any improvements will be incremental, not exponential. Therefore, only a few experiments will reveal if it is worth the extra time and trouble.
After all, at the end of the day, it's just beer, not the Manhattan Project.
No but this topic seems to bring out a certain element in people, so i wanted to make my point first that we can discuss this topic, even debate it, while remaining adults.
I think you may be combining ideas from 2 different posts. One comment was that most home brewers aren't knowledgeable enough to do execute the PDF procedure. It didn't speak to the merits of low oxygen brewing.
I don't take things personally. I think i have thicker skin than most and i tend to think others should too.
stpug
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,808
- Reaction score
- 767
care to elaborate on where you got SMB in Europe. I'll listen to the podcast, but can't pull 2.5 hours right now. I'm in Italy and can't find it anywhere! Never mind how long it took me to find an oxiclean substitute
You actually have probably THE BEST option available to you since you live in Italy. Antioxin SBT is a formulation using potassium metabisulfite, ascorbic acid, and gallotannins. This mixture is often referred to as the 'trifecta' and is only available to commercial brewers in many parts of the world including the US. This pre-packaged mixture is what most folks in the USA have to mix themselves using individual powders, and the resulting mixture is not quite as good as the real thing.
The unfortunate part is that if you buy a kilo of the stuff then you'll probably die with 80% of it left
. The fortunate part is that you don't have to brew "low oxygen" in order to use the stuff - it should be used for any and every beer you brew regardless of oxygen level.Might be worth considering:
http://www.mr-malt.com/antioxin-sbt-kg-1.html
Cavpilot2000
Well-Known Member
No but this topic seems to bring out a certain element in people, so i wanted to make my point first that we can discuss this topic, even debate it, while remaining adults.
I think you may be combining ideas from 2 different posts. One comment was that most home brewers aren't knowledgeable enough to do execute the PDF procedure. It didn't speak to the merits of low oxygen brewing.
I don't take things personally. I think i have thicker skin than most and i tend to think others should too.
I think you may be correct - I could be conflating two different posts.
And I think (or rather hope) no skin was injured during the writing of this /these posts.
And this really shouldn't be the contentious issue it has become - it is merely one more process that some people feel contributes to the quality of their beer, while other folks don't want to be bothered. It's no different than decoction mashing or choice of fermentation vessel in that regard. And like those choices, some feel they benefit while others don't.
It is all entirely subjective based on individual tastes anyway.
In this particular case, I don't take issue with the process, but rather the unspoken but clearly implied suggestions of the article itself. It's akin to saying you can't get that characteristic Guinness taste without modern grain kilning processes (in both cases, the style in question predates the techniques claimed to be responsible).
But back to the matter at hand. I will try to incorporate some of these techniques over the next few months and will report back any observable differences, because as a neutral observer who hasn't drunk the LoDO Kool-Aid yet, I would be immune to confirmation bias.
But I am anxious to see the results.
OP
OP
rabeb25
HE of who can not be spoken of.
Yup, I am Bryan. Thanks for the kind words on the podcast, I got a lot of positive feedback from it and thats what spurred the creation of the website( and forums)
OP
OP
rabeb25
HE of who can not be spoken of.
Just to fan the flames, Guinness is a low oxygen brew house and the flavor of modern day Guinness is a direct result from low oxygen practices, if you are having issues replicating the flavor.. well then.. you may know the answer
I encourage you to try the methods, it may matter it may not, but either way you never know if you don't try! Kudos.
You actually have probably THE BEST option available to you since you live in Italy. Antioxin SBT is a formulation using potassium metabisulfite, ascorbic acid, and gallotannins. This mixture is often referred to as the 'trifecta' and is only available to commercial brewers in many parts of the world including the US. This pre-packaged mixture is what most folks in the USA have to mix themselves using individual powders, and the resulting mixture is not quite as good as the real thing.
The unfortunate part is that if you buy a kilo of the stuff then you'll probably die with 80% of it left
Might be worth considering:
http://www.mr-malt.com/antioxin-sbt-kg-1.html
perhaps there is a typo, but I don't want to be adding potassium meta. there is also evidence that using AA can ultimately backfire
