Oxygen for oxygenating wort

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.
T Murph

T Murph

Homebrew Advocate
HBT Supporter
Joined
Mar 19, 2021
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
3,252
Location
Cullman
How do you oxygenate your wort? I'm interested in finding a better way to oxygenate my wort than using industrial oxygen for welding. There has to be a more sanitary way. Are there filters available that I don't know about? Looking for suggestions.
 
I have an aquarium pump with a filter but I have not yet used it. I used O2 on the last big beer I made (10%), filtered also. For normal brews, as my wort comes out of the plate chiller, I let it splash like heck into the fermenter. That's good enough for a ripping fermentation with a starter.
 
Welding, medical and aviators breathing oxygen all come from the same tank. The only difference is that for human use the cylinders have to be inverted for filling. That is the only difference since there is only one process, distillation of air, for creating the oxygen it all comes out very high purity.

Use the welding cylinder and do not worry.
 
I'm using O2 from a welding tank and the SS Brew Tech Inline Oxygenation Kit item on the wort out port of my plate chiller. Works pissah since it infuses the wort as it leaves the plate chiller and flows into my conical fermenter.

Be aware, using pumps or the 'shake' method only gives you a maximum of 8ppm of O2 infused into your wort. It's a limitation of using atmospheric oxygen. Using pure O2 means you can get significantly more oxygen into the wort.

I have a flow regulator (Lpm) on the O2 tank that allows me to set it in .5 Lpm increments. I usually use the 1-2 Lpm values. The upper range for bigger beers. Has done well for me to date.
 
Pure O2 will kill a lot of microbes. The process of making it is fractional distillation of liquid air, so there will be no moisture to carry germs anyway. IMO, the biggest infection vector in the aeration/oxygenation system is the aeration stone. Those micron sized holes can trap a lot of stuff. I boil mine after each use, then store in a jar of Starsan until next use.

You can buy a little inline filter from the brew store for $5 if you want to be extra cautious, but it isn't really needed.
 
Golddiggie said:
I push O2 through the stone post use, and cleaning and then it will soak in Starsan for at least 30 minutes on brew day before getting used.
Click to expand...

Remember though those small pores wick the wort deep into the passageways. I have found the only way to remove that gunk is to store the stone in 3% NaOh solution between brew days. The first time you do that and see the brown crud that comes out is pretty shocking to say the least.

Edit: If you do this use a plastic bottle and not glass.
 
Bilsch said:
Remember though those small pores wick the wort deep into the passageways. I have found the only way to remove that gunk is to store the stone in 3% NaOh solution between brew days. The first time you do that and see the brown crud that comes out is pretty shocking to say the least.
Click to expand...
Thank you, that's a new method to me, and worth doing.

I've been keeping mine dry between brew sessions. Then submerge in my Starsan bucket during brewday, then at the end, blow out the soaked-up Starsan with O2 before sticking it in the wort. That seems to work fine.

One day I forgot to pull the wand out of the bucket after use. The next day the Starsan had crawled a few feet up the tubing... O2 dissolves in water/Starsan solution!
 
...and remove it and rinse it off while there's still some remaining gas flowing.

fwiw, last year I noticed my 8 yo Williams wand's .5u stone wasn't bubbling anywhere near as uniformly as prior. To clean it I hung it stone-side-down over a plastic tub on my shop bench and slowly pushed hot PBW through it using ~20 psi from my air compressor. I cobbled a quick connect to the wand so I could pour a hundred mls? maybe much less, I dunno - of hot solution in then attach the coupler and push it out, remove the coupler, add more solution, etc. Took about 20 minutes of actual washing/rinsing after around 40 minutes of setup to get it as good as new.

After that I was more conscious of rinsing while the bubbles were still flowing.

I was going to come up with a higher capacity in-line "thing" to fill one time, attach to the wand, and push. Forgot all about it :)

Cheers!
 
IslandLizard said:
It won't wick wort if you only stick it into the wort while the O2 is running (foamy stone, bubbles).
Click to expand...

Yes I did all that as well.
Just saying.. try the hydroxide soak (KOH or NaOH) for a couple days and then tell me if your stone was clean. ;)

For the PBW guys.. soaking in any other cleaner just wont do in this case.
 
Murph4231 said:
How do you oxygenate your wort? I'm interested in finding a better way to oxygenate my wort than using industrial oxygen for welding. There has to be a more sanitary way. Are there filters available that I don't know about? Looking for suggestions.
Click to expand...
If you are talking about the red "welding" cylinders, the only issue is that they are expensive to use! I bought a new 20lb tank at a local gas supply store completely filled for $120. The guy said the oxygen comes out of the same tank as the medical oxygen and that the only difference is the tank isn't "medical grade." 20 lbs will last me years.
 
MaxStout said:
I boil mine after each use, then store in a jar of Starsan until next use.
Click to expand...
I also used to boil then set in a small jar of Star San. My “stone” is stainless, but the base shaft is not - I noticed that the Star San was corroding and pitting the shaft. Nowadays, I boil it and dry it out. I keep it in a sandwich baggie dry until use. I spray some Star San solution into the baggie to saturate and sanitize the stone prior to use.
 
Bilsch said:
Yes I did all that as well.
Just saying.. try the hydroxide soak (KOH or NaOH) for a couple days and then tell me if your stone was clean. ;)

For the PBW guys.. soaking in any other cleaner just wont do in this case.
Click to expand...

I might have to try that. I have a small jar of food-grade NaOH left over from a time I made pretzels.
 
MaxStout said:
I might have to try that. I have a small jar of food-grade NaOH left over from a time I made pretzels.
Click to expand...
"Food grade" as in what's different from pure (or 99% pure) NaOH? I have some of the 99% pure Red Devil NaOH on hand still from when I was anodizing at home. I'll need to check the stone I use and make sure using NaOH won't create more issues than it potentially solves. I've had excellent results from using PBW since I make sure to flush the stone with gas while it's still "wet". I always get clean foam out of it when I do this.
 
IslandLizard said:
Thank you, that's a new method to me, and worth doing.

I've been keeping mine dry between brew sessions. Then submerge in my Starsan bucket during brewday, then at the end, blow out the soaked-up Starsan with O2 before sticking it in the wort. That seems to work fine.

One day I forgot to pull the wand out of the bucket after use. The next day the Starsan had crawled a few feet up the tubing... O2 dissolves in water/Starsan solution!
Click to expand...

I quit using any form of oxygenation and went to adding a single drop of extra virgin olive oil to the cooled wort. You dip a sanitized tooth pick into the olive oil and let the drop fall into the wort. That single drop gives the yeast the nutrient they need to grow that they would have had to produce from the oxygen you would have added. Sounds far fetched but works with virtually no chance of infecting the beer.

Here is the link:
https://winning-homebrew.com/olive-oil-in-beer.html
 
belgabrewing said:
I quit using any form of oxygenation and went to adding a single drop of extra virgin olive oil to the cooled wort. You dip a sanitized tooth pick into the olive oil and let the drop fall into the wort. That single drop gives the yeast the nutrient they need to grow that they would have had to produce from the oxygen you would have added. Sounds far fetched but works with virtually no chance of infecting the beer.

Here is the link:
https://winning-homebrew.com/olive-oil-in-beer.html
Click to expand...

It should be noted that New Belgium, the brewery that did the experiment, ultimately did not switch from O2 to olive oil in production. Maybe because olive oil increased esters. Maybe because fermentations were slower. I dunno, because they never said.
 
From the "Olive Oil" article:

For this reason, oxygen is always added to a wort prior to pitching yeast as it has always been considered to be essential to yeast growth.

Then it says:

So what if we could do away with the headache of deciding how much oxygen to add, when to add it, and what is the best way to add it. Wouldn’t that simplify our lives as homebrewers? Not to mention the added benefit of improved aging and flavor stability.

So, the article first states the necessity of giving yeast O2 for growth, then goes on to say something like "it's just too complicated, let's just not do the O2 thing altogether and use olive oil instead!"

How does olive oil supply the needed O2 for cell growth? (Rhetorical question. We all know the answer.)

Also worth noting is the "scientific" paper cited in the article was a piece submitted to a couple professors (no idea what their qualifications are, aside from apparently teaching brewing classes at some trade school), but no followup information as to the results of any scientific review. Any grad student can submit a thesis paper; most grad programs require one. Doesn't make every submission valid science.

Sounds like the makings of yet another brewing urban legend. We have too many of those already.
 
MaxStout said:
From the "Olive Oil" article:

For this reason, oxygen is always added to a wort prior to pitching yeast as it has always been considered to be essential to yeast growth.

Then it says:

So what if we could do away with the headache of deciding how much oxygen to add, when to add it, and what is the best way to add it. Wouldn’t that simplify our lives as homebrewers? Not to mention the added benefit of improved aging and flavor stability.

So, the article first states the necessity of giving yeast O2 for growth, then goes on to say something like "it's just too complicated, let's just not do the O2 thing altogether and use olive oil instead!"

How does olive oil supply the needed O2 for cell growth? (Rhetorical question. We all know the answer.)

Also worth noting is the "scientific" paper cited in the article was a piece submitted to a couple professors (no idea what their qualifications are, aside from apparently teaching brewing classes at some trade school), but no followup information as to the results of any scientific review. Any grad student can submit a thesis paper; most grad programs require one. Doesn't make every submission valid science.

Sounds like the makings of yet another brewing urban legend. We have too many of those already.
Click to expand...
My first thought was that this was a brewing (home or pro) version of The Onion...

For me, how, when and how much O2 to add has never been 'a headache'. Even when I was using the stone on wand it wasn't a headache. The regulator I have on the O2 bottle made it easy. I'm sure if you're using the welding style tanks it's more of an issue since those have no way to judge the flow rate coming either from the O2 bottle, or out the stone. I've had the regulator I'm using for over a decade.

With my current setup, it's even easier. Since I no longer need to sanitize the wand and such before using it.

My 'rule of thumb' is if I'm making a system change (either minor or major) it needs to either make the process easier, give me better beer, or do both. Otherwise it's really not worth making a change. All the changes I've done this year meet those parameters (or exceed them).
 
Its more the timing of the oxygenation, rather than the amount (few of us have O2 meters). With homebrew level equipment it's damn near impossible to over-oxygenate, unless you are forcing it in for several minutes. And with air, 8ppm is about the limit. Oxygenate right at the pitch and things will be fine.
 
VikeMan said:
It should be noted that New Belgium, the brewery that did the experiment, ultimately did not switch from O2 to olive oil in production. Maybe because olive oil increased esters. Maybe because fermentations were slower. I dunno, because they never said.
Click to expand...

I think the use of olive oil instead of oxygenation is a fantastic alternative. It is virtually fool proof versus the chance of contaminating the wort with the gas contraption. The chance of inoculating your wort with a "bad bug" using a sanitized toothpick to place a drop of EVOO into the wort is really as close to zero as possible. As far as altering the flavor profile with esters etc, Brulosophy published the link below.

https://brulosophy.com/2020/01/27/i...rnative-to-wort-aeration-exbeeriment-results/
 
MaxStout said:
How does olive oil supply the needed O2 for cell growth? (Rhetorical question. We all know the answer.)
Click to expand...

Yeast don't need oxygen (per se) for growth. They need sterols, to build cell wall materials in preparation for budding. Oxygen is needed in order for the yeast to build sterols. But olive oil provides the sterols directly.
 
belgabrewing said:
I think the use of olive oil instead of oxygenation is a fantastic alternative. It is virtually fool proof versus the chance of contaminating the wort with the gas contraption. The chance of inoculating your wort with a "bad bug" using a sanitized toothpick to place a drop of EVOO into the wort is really as close to zero as possible. As far as altering the flavor profile with esters etc, Brulosophy published the link below.

https://brulosophy.com/2020/01/27/i...rnative-to-wort-aeration-exbeeriment-results/
Click to expand...
My risk is even lower than your fabled toothpick of EVOO method. Since everything from the plate chiller to fermenter is fully sanitized before a drop of wort flows into it. I'm using a closed transfer setup, so that reduces the risk even more. The only time there's a risk, post chill/oxygenation, is when I pitch the yeast into the fermenter. That is, until I setup with a yeast brink. I follow 'best practices' when adding my yeast slurry into the fermenter. Have had zero infections/contaminations over the several batches into conical to date.

I have zero desire to add a fat into my batch of beer. Especially, as MaxStout pointed out, the dubious validity of the 'article' mentioned. I'll stick with my tried and true methods. Since I get great beer every batch.
 
VikeMan said:
Yeast don't need oxygen (per se) for growth. They need sterols, to build cell wall materials in preparation for budding. Oxygen is needed in order for the yeast to build sterols. But olive oil provides the sterols directly.
Click to expand...
It also means less "stress" on the yeast and that actually lowers the chance of off flavors being produced by stressed yeast. Also can mean shorter fermentation times because the yeast are "stronger".
 
belgabrewing said:
It also means less "stress" on the yeast and that actually lowers the chance of off flavors being produced by stressed yeast.
Click to expand...

Why does it men less stress? Do you assume that because the yeast get to skip a step? If so, I'd want to see some data that it reduces off flavors.

belgabrewing said:
Also can mean shorter fermentation times because the yeast are "stronger".
Click to expand...

Can it? The trials at New Belgium showed the opposite. What evidence is there that the yeast are stronger?
 
VikeMan said:
Why does it men less stress? Do you assume that because the yeast get to skip a step? If so, I'd want to see some data that it reduces off flavors.



Can it? The trials at New Belgium showed the opposite. What evidence is there that the yeast are stronger?
Click to expand...
I suppose from reading about pitch rates and why you make a starter with a larger number of cells to reduce the "stress" on the yeast in high gravity beers. It would lead one to believe that helping the yeast to thrive more quickly by allowing them to skip a step in their metabolism would result in the possible reduction off flavors mentioned when there is a discussion about pitch rates etc.
 
belgabrewing said:
I suppose from reading about pitch rates and why you make a starter with a larger number of cells to reduce the "stress" on the yeast in high gravity beers. It would lead one to believe that helping the yeast to thrive more quickly by allowing them to skip a step in their metabolism would result in the possible reduction off flavors mentioned when there is a discussion about pitch rates etc.
Click to expand...

One could just as easily argue (i.e. assume) that skipping a step results in making less of some flavors that are desirable. Personally, I wouldn't make either assumption without data.
 
There's an article about this I find interesting but haven't exactly determined what to do with (the short take-away is "it depends"). I will link it below. If it's a page for components for sale then maybe scroll lower, past them.

https://www.morebeer.com/category/wort-oxygenation-aeration.html/#Biochemistry of yeast
The first paragraph, with of course much more after it:

"Fermentation is perhaps the most interesting and exciting part of brewing beer. There is something fascinating about watching yeast in action, and being close to the process contributes immensely to my enjoyment of my beer. No matter how well we do our part in preparing bitter wort for fermentation, it is the yeast that turns it into beer. For this reason alone, it is important to understand and appreciate what these microorganisms are really doing inside our fermentors. Most of the popular brewing literature, however, fosters a misconception about yeast and fermentation. This articles sets the record straight.

Most of the brewing literature indicates that brewers’ yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae and S. uvarum) required dissolved oxygen for a brief period of time after pitching so the cells can respire and grow, implying that yeast needs oxygen to bud and must respire before it can ferment wort. It is true that aerating or oxygenating wort is generally beneficial to fermentation, but it is untrue to say that yeast requires oxygen to reproduce or that yeast uses oxygen to respire during fermentation. The misunderstanding may be subtle, but it is a misunderstanding nonetheless. Gaining a clear understanding of the truth about how yeast works not only sets us on sound technical foundations, but has practical applications as well. This article briefly discusses yeast metabolism, clarifies the role of oxygen, and suggests some practical applications of this more refined understanding of fermentation processes."
 
Last edited:
tracer bullet said:
There's an article about this I find interesting but haven't exactly determined what to do with (the short take-away is "it depends"). I will link it below. If it's a page for components for sale then maybe scroll lower, past them.

https://www.morebeer.com/category/wort-oxygenation-aeration.html/#Biochemistry of yeast
Click to expand...

Hoping someone with more knowledge and experience could give the article a read and weigh in on their thoughts. I'm really finding this part interesting:

" I do not believe that brewers necessarily need to aerate their worts at all if the pitching yeast comes from a fresh starter culture that itself has been well-aerated during growth and stepped up to produce a sufficient number of healthy cells "

They do go on to say that it can be style dependent of course, if you are looking for particular characteristics.
 
tracer bullet said:
" I do not believe that brewers necessarily need to aerate their worts at all if the pitching yeast comes from a fresh starter culture that itself has been well-aerated during growth and stepped up to produce a sufficient number of healthy cells "
Click to expand...

I've read that before in various forms, but I think it kind of ignores the fact that starters don't actually produce "a sufficient number of healthy cells." By that, I mean that there's normally more budding happening in the main batch than ever happened in the starter. The starter gets the cell count to the appropriate starting place for the main batch. We want significant budding in the main batch. Otherwise, we could just severely "overpitch" and call it a day.

And to do all that budding in the main batch, those cells need to build sufficient sterols. I think that's pretty hard to manage in a starter sized volume.
 
I gave up using the aeration stones a couple years ago after getting sick of those $10 Home Depot oxygen bottles leaking and just getting a few uses out of them, and cleaning the wand and stone. I just use the shake method now which works well enough. Wondering if there would be any benefit to combining shaking with adding a few drops of olive oil to kick start things. I may give it a try.
 

Similar threads

mongoose33
Oxygenating Dry Yeast issue
Replies
9
Views
1K
Red over White
Red over White
P
why siphon instead of pour if next step is aeration?
Replies
18
Views
1K
jerrylotto
jerrylotto
Hoochin'Fool
yeast cake question
Replies
2
Views
201
hottpeper13
H
scogan
Hot side oxygen
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
wepeeler
wepeeler
K
single pitch for double batch?
Replies
0
Views
121
kennyconley0269
K
BrewSwag 300

Latest posts

Back
Top