A Genuine Viewpoint Opposing LODO As Unsubstantiated

[Jayjay1976]

The rationale that HSO even matters rests on the same logic as the flying spaghetti monster; that since it can't be disproven, it isn't any less credible than any other facet of brewing science. I won't accept that. I'm not doubting that proof is out there, I just haven't seen it.

On a side note, I recall reading somewhere that even once western explorers in China were presented with the body of a dead panda as proof that they existed, an entire century passed before anyone managed to capture a live specimen.

I will gladly embrace LODO brewing practices as hard science as soon as someone shows me a video of a sasquatch enjoying a pint while remarking on it's 'dazzling punch of flavor' and how the 'dark malts just pop'.

 

[Jayjay1976]

My best homebrew has been the best beer I’ve ever had.

The best beer I've ever had is always the one in my hand at that moment.

 

[MaxStout]

I incorporate a few basic LODO elements into my brewing process, and I think it has helped my beers get better. I have gleaned useful knowledge from some of the LODO threads here. But since this is a hobby to me, and not a profession, I don't want to go all the way down the rabbit hole with it. I want brewing to be an enjoyable, relaxing pastime, and don't wish to go beyond the point of diminishing returns. Limiting stirring, adding K-meta to the strike water, no-sparge mashing, etc., are easy things to do. I'm not going to get into spunding valves and such.

Different brewers have different goals and I get that some people want to take it as far as possible and do everything they can to ensure better process control. But a few of the LODO True Believers(TM) get a little too evangelical about it. When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...

 

[Kee]

. . . I am interested in brett and lambic, old style brewing methods like that wood fired baked beer video I saw on here, getting set up for kegging, mead and farmhouse styles like bierre de garde. For different reasons I have not tried any of those.

Brett can be as simple as pouring Orval dregs in the bottleing bucket. (Borrowing from BLAM).

 

[bob1852]

I'm gonna revolutionize HIDO as thee new technique...

Right up there with no chill, BIAB, and hop bursting....

It's gonna make the best beer ever and you can't prove otherwise, so all you EAC's can go back to making your inferior beer while I drink my superior beer with my pinky out while sitting upon my high horse.

 

[GoeHaarden]

I had a long "opinionated" reply to this thread, but honestly no one cares about a stranger's opinion so I deleted it...

I'm what you would call an independent in the LODO argument, but I do have to question someone who accepts Brülosophy exBeeriment results as fact without forming their own judgments. It's okay to be your own person sometimes.

Anyways, why don't some of the naysayers do a beer swap of the same recipe with someone who LODOs? Then you can decide for yourselves.

Glad that's settled, can we move on now?

 

[bob1852]

Anyways, why don't some of the naysayers do a beer swap of the same recipe with someone who LODOs? Then you can decide for yourselves.

If every other variable (water chemistry, yeast management, fermentation conditions, etc. etc. etc. etc.) were exactly the same (other than oxygen management), then maybe that could tell you something. Maybe....

Until then, were stuck with anecdotals, opinions, and some triangle test results that contradict with anecdotals and opinions.

 

[bob1852]

P.S., I'm not pro or anti LODO, but since this is in the DRMM forum, I'm going to treat it as such.

@Laughing_Gnome_Invisible

 

[GoeHaarden]

If every other variable (water chemistry, yeast management, fermentation conditions, etc. etc. etc. etc.) were exactly the same (other than oxygen management), then maybe that could tell you something. Maybe.

How is this so difficult? Distilled water built up the same. Dry yeast. Most people in this argument probably control their ferm temps. If you can't control these things then I would agree that LODO probably won't make difference in your beer...

Either way, the whole basis of the suggestion was to entice people to do their own research (I.e., beer swap or try the techniques themselves) before forming such opinions.

I don't care either way, but if you're not willing to even try then why say anything at all?

 

[GoeHaarden]

P.S., I'm not pro or anti LODO, but since this is in the DRMM forum, I'm going to treat it as such.

@Laughing_Gnome_Invisible

Agreed. Quite entertaining if nothing else!

 

[ba-brewer]

I don't need to worry about LODO, I live in a big city with poor air quality. I also have a high ruffage diet so I work in a methane rich environment.


I have followed the LODO thread since pretty early on mostly out of curiousity and partially for the drama, but have never tried brewing LODO. I am opened minded that the process produced improvements in the peoples beer. I plan to try it some day but I am nervous the "it" flavor is the same raw grainy flavor I wait to go away before I drink my beer.

 

[bob1852]

How is this so difficult?

Let me add more variables...

Distilled water source, 100% accurate measurements of grains, hops, yeast, water volume, water mineral additons, mash temps, mash pH, mash volume, sparge temp and voume, pre-boil volume, boil off rate, post boil volume, chilling process, fermenter dimensions, post fermentation process, bottling/kegging process, etc., etc...

Sorry, if a recipe and LODO (or no LODO) were the only variables, it would be much easier to clone beers.

Give 10 brewers the same recipe and you'll wind up with 10 different beers...

 

[Sadu]

I thought the brulosophy experiment was well designed and I didn't see any process issues in the experiment, other than the amounts of MBS used. Unfortunately the LODO beer came out sulfury and it turns out that people don't prefer sulfur.
So the experiment while interesting, is not an endorsement of non-lodo being better. It says that sulfur is not desirable in beer which we already know.
It does suggest that making a non-sulfury LODO beer can be a bit of a challenge.
I concur with this, my first LODO batch has mild sulfur on the nose which detracts from an otherwise excellent lager. I think I took it off the yeast too soon, so that is a process thing to work on.

 

[GoeHaarden]

Let me add more variables...

Distilled water source, 100% accurate measurements of grains, hops, yeast, water volume, water mineral additons, mash temps, mash pH, mash volume, sparge temp and voume, pre-boil volume, boil off rate, post boil volume, chilling process, fermenter dimensions, post fermentation process, bottling/kegging process, etc., etc...

So what you're telling me is that there are many variables that effect the beers final taste? What??? Why is it that all these things you list can be accepted as variables that contribute to the final product, but LODO is considered hocus-pocus without any effects? Maybe it isn't until you control all other variables will LODO make any difference? Who knows honestly...

Once again, I don't LODO so I'm not arguing it's efficacy one way or another. Just trying to get some people to open their eyes to the possibility that maybe it does make a difference and they should try it if they are unsure...

Psst. I still perform decoctions on most my lagers, because I like the process and I feel it does make a difference. I can argue that because I've done it both ways, and I prefer decoctions. If I haven't tried both then my argument would be one of ignorance!

 

[bob1852]

So the experiment while interesting, is not an endorsement of non-lodo being better.

There's a common misconception that triangle tests are used to determine which beer (i.e. which variable) is better. That's just not what a triangle test is designed for.

All a sensory triangle test is designed for is to determine if perceivable difference between the samples exists, and to what statistical significance (i.e. are the tasters closer, or further, from random chance in their pick of the different sample).

 

[Sadu]

There's a common misconception that triangle tests are used to determine which beer (i.e. which variable) is better. That's just not what a triangle test is designed for.

All a sensory triangle test is designed for is to determine if perceivable difference between the samples exists, and to what statistical significance (i.e. are the tasters closer, or further, from random chance in their pick of the different sample).

OK sure. So in that case, the notes in the article indicate that tasters were differentiating the beers based on sulfur.

There may or may not have been differences in "fresh malt character" that the test was designed to highlight. the sulfur is an extra unwanted variable clouding things. That's how I understood things anyway.

 

[schematix]

I thought the brulosophy experiment was well designed and I didn't see any process issues in the experiment, other than the amounts of MBS used. Unfortunately the LODO beer came out sulfury and it turns out that people don't prefer sulfur.
So the experiment while interesting, is not an endorsement of non-lodo being better. It says that sulfur is not desirable in beer which we already know.
It does suggest that making a non-sulfury LODO beer can be a bit of a challenge.
I concur with this, my first LODO batch has mild sulfur on the nose which detracts from an otherwise excellent lager. I think I took it off the yeast too soon, so that is a process thing to work on.

You didn't see a difference in process when their 2 batches measured 1.044 OG vs 1.035 OG? How about when their mash was 2 degrees cooler in one sample?

The sulfur issue has long since been understood. You just have to oxygenate enough to get rid of the sulfites and problem solved. If you overdose sulfites and under oxygenate you will have some issues.

 

[Sadu]

You didn't see a difference in process when their 2 batches measured 1.044 OG vs 1.035 OG? How about when their mash was 2 degrees cooler in one sample?

I've experienced much lower efficiency than normal in my LODO batches. So yeah, if you use the same grain bill I'd expect the OG to be different. Would it have been better to account for that in the recipe design and try to get the same OG? Sure.
2 degrees difference in mash temperature happens. To be honest I appreciate their attempt at trying to triangle test this thing and I'm not going to pick at them for minor differences in mash temperature.

The sulfur issue has long since been understood. You just have to oxygenate enough to get rid of the sulfites and problem solved. If you overdose sulfites and under oxygenate you will have some issues.

OK fair enough, this could well explain the issue. I used the recommended starting dose of MBS (30ppm) and aerated very well with an electric drill + egg beater attachment like I always do. I don't have pure O2 available.

Without wanting to hijack the thread, would aerating regularly (with the drill and egg beater method) for the first few hours after pitching be a suitable alternative in your view? I can't justify the spend on an O2 setup at this stage.

 

[schematix]

I've experienced much lower efficiency than normal in my LODO batches. So yeah, if you use the same grain bill I'd expect the OG to be different. Would it have been better to account for that in the recipe design and try to get the same OG? Sure.
2 degrees difference in mash temperature happens. To be honest I appreciate their attempt at trying to triangle test this thing and I'm not going to pick at them for minor differences in mash temperature.

When I first starting doing low oxygen i experienced lower efficiencies due to 2 things.
1. There was initially a recommendation to not stir the mash after underletting. This is absolutely a mistake and the advice has been rescinded for a long time. One good gentle stir is enough if you recirculate. A couple are needed if you don't. Just go easy.

2. The grain that was available on the US market from European sources at the time "LODO" was published had an unusually high gelatinzation temp. Long story short, 145F wasn't warm enough to release the starch into solution. The 2 extra degrees was enough to release a lot more. Typically in good harvest years the gel temp is around 140F, but can sometimes be almost as high as 150F if there are hot and dry conditions.

I step mash and prior to low oxygen i was doing Hockhurz step mashes at 145/158 and didn't have any issues. Around the time i switched i had new grain and the same mash program gave me poor efficiency and really bad attenuation. After a lot of searching and consultation with some really smart people they suggested i monitor the extract during the mash. Sure enough if you're mashing in the 140s you'll see a plateau in your extract. Bumping even a couple degrees can make a huge difference. Single infusion mashing at 150 or above will get you the starches, but the beta amylase is gone by that point and you won't get the attenuation. So i added another mash step a few degrees hotter and all of a sudden both problems were solved. When i get new sacks of grain i monitor mash gravity at each step to determine how much of the extract i've been able to attain. I *always* get 100% conversion because i hit all the temps needed to get it.

OK fair enough, this could well explain the issue. I used the recommended starting dose of MBS (30ppm) and aerated very well with an electric drill + egg beater attachment like I always do. I don't have pure O2 available.

Without wanting to hijack the thread, would aerating regularly (with the drill and egg beater method) for the first few hours after pitching be a suitable alternative in your view? I can't justify the spend on an O2 setup at this stage.

It's very important you have 0 sulfites left when you're done. You don't want to pitch the yeast into them because they will absorb them and then you get the sulfur aroma that no one wants. Another option besides O2 is a small air pump with a filter. They are less than an O2 set up, but will still cost money.

Also 30ppm is on the higher end of the recommended spectrum. I have a pretty tight system and run 10 ppm, although i could do less. I can still smell the residual sulfites at the end of the boil but not after i oxygenate. Doesn't matter how much you use though, aside from the added sodium and sulfates, if you consume them all prior to pitching.

 

[Sadu]

It's very important you have 0 sulfites left when you're done. You don't want to pitch the yeast into them because they will absorb them and then you get the sulfur aroma that no one wants.
Also 30ppm is on the higher end of the recommended spectrum.

Thanks, that's actually really helpful. I think with all the required reading and new processes to learn I missed the part where an important purpose (primary purpose?) of aeration at pitching in a LODO brew was to remove the surplus sulfites. I just assumed that aeration was important, as it always has been, for healthy fermentation.

OK. So it sounds like my system has leftover sulfites at pitching time. Can I take this as an endorsement that my mash and boil procedures are pretty good for the amount of sulfites used? Put another way, if everything was getting splashed around and using up all the sulfites then I wouldn't be getting sulfur bombs right? So I'm thinking I should try next time with reduced sulfites (say 20ppm instead of 30ppm) and make sure that it gets a really decent aeration at pitching. I'll look into an air pump with filter, for now an extra hit with the drill might have to suffice.

 

[schematix]

OK. So it sounds like my system has leftover sulfites at pitching time. Can I take this as an endorsement that my mash and boil procedures are pretty good for the amount of sulfites used? Put another way, if everything was getting splashed around and using up all the sulfites then I wouldn't be getting sulfur bombs right? So I'm thinking I should try next time with reduced sulfites (say 20ppm instead of 30ppm) and make sure that it gets a really decent aeration at pitching. I'll look into an air pump with filter, for now an extra hit with the drill might have to suffice.

It's possible. The other sign of excess sulfites is sluggish fermentation. The best method is to get the sulfite test strips and make a pale beer. For now i'd say yah just aerate the best you can once the wort is chilled.

If you've made sure all of your fittings are leak proof and you used a mash cap then 10 ppm is more than enough.

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

Not trying something doesn’t make someone ignorant. There are other better ways to gather knowledge than trying it yourself. Though it seems counterintuitive, I can know that David Copperfield can make the Statue of Liberty disappear. With the sensory information that I have available to me, I have to conclude that David Copperfield is a great magician which he is in the figurative sense, but everyone knows that it’s a trick and if I read accounts of people that were there and looked at unofficial photos of the scene, I would know exactly how the trick works. So getting the secondhand information is actually of more value than the first hand information. I believe that to be the case with LODO.

While I’m sure that Mongoose33 and Morrey both brew great beer, using their experience of LODO as a benchmark is faulted. Based on the exchange that they had, I would say they have positive feelings about each others brewing. Their feelings about each other would bias them. Even if they hated each other and thought they were terrible brewers, the expectation of getting pig swill and then having something drinkable could create a false positive. The only true testament would be a world class beer judge who had a perfect record proven palate that agrees with other world class beer judges in blind tests, but that’s not really realistic. So we have what we got and I think consensus is as good as anything else, so that’s why I started this, though I never thought we’d reach consensus, the discussion has helped me. Like passedpawn, the extra time, money and effort is not worth it to me at the moment. As far as does LODO make better beer all things considered, I can only know what I know and I don’t know.

 

[Pkrd]

Can you please keep your well informed opinions and useful practical advice to yourselves.

This is the Drunken Ramblings forums and we have standards to uphold!

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

Brett can be as simple as pouring Orval dregs in the bottleing bucket. (Borrowing from BLAM).

The reason I’ve stayed away from brett is that I’ve heard it is hard to get out of your equipment and even then can sneak back in from hanging around in the fermentation chamber etc. and that even small amounts missed can bloom and take a conventional beer into brett land.

The reason I’m interested is a brewer here in Phoenix called Dubina had an all brett beer at Brewers Bowl a couple years ago and that beer is in the top 5 most delicious and memorable beers I’ve had.

 

[AZCoolerBrewer]

Can you please keep your well informed opinions and useful practical advice to yourselves.

This is the Drunken Ramblings forums and we have standards to uphold!

Sorry, about that. I looooooove yooooouu man!!!

 

[Pkrd]

I love you too man. I love you as much as beer loves being oxygen free. Which is quite a lot really, or maybe nothing at all.

 

[murphyslaw]

It's very important you have 0 sulfites left when you're done. You don't want to pitch the yeast into them because they will absorb them and then you get the sulfur aroma that no one wants. Another option besides O2 is a small air pump with a filter. They are less than an O2 set up, but will still cost money.

I thought you are supposed to pitch, then aerate?

 

[mongoose33]

I thought you are supposed to pitch, then aerate?

I took an off-flavor workshop in July. We had a local professional brewer there, and I asked him about this. His answer? Pitch WHILE you aerate. His reasoning is it will help mix up the yeast in the wort.

So the consensus is, there's no consensus.

 

[schematix]

I took an off-flavor workshop in July. We had a local professional brewer there, and I asked him about this. His answer? Pitch WHILE you aerate. His reasoning is it will help mix up the yeast in the wort.

So the consensus is, there's no consensus.

1. Professional not likely using sulfites I would assume.

2. In larger tanks I could see this being advantageous.

Both are issues of scale. What works for 1G doesn’t always work for 5G doesn’t always work for 10G, 1 BBL, 100 hL, etc.

The key takeaway is don’t expose yeast to sulfites, even for a moment.

 

[mongoose33]

1. Professional not likely using sulfites I would assume.

2. In larger tanks I could see this being advantageous.

Both are issues of scale. What works for 1G doesn’t always work for 5G doesn’t always work for 10G, 1 BBL, 100 hL, etc.

The key takeaway is don’t expose yeast to sulfites, even for a moment.

Hmmm....I'm using Campden Tablets (sodium or potassium metabisulfite) as part of the strike water to act as an oxygen scavenger. I've been doing that for....well, the last 10 batches or so. I don't see any negatives as to my yeast, so I'm not clear on what you're referring to. I have funny holes in my knowledge; would you elaborate?