All In One Brewing Systems and Hot Side Aeration

[day_trippr]

Firestone Walker?
Oh. Ok...

 

[Broothru]

I only fermented one lager-it got infected, so no idea what it tasted like.

I am talking about lagers in general-Mexican, Japanese, American, commercial lagers across the board.

Totally agree with @Bilsch on the recipe.

BrewTan B (by Wyeast) appears to be marketed for commercial breweries, but I've found it in smaller home brew sized amounts at Great Fermentations. It's different than just wine tannin, and a little goes a long way, so it's a relatively minor cost. Same goes for ascorbic acid.

I'm curious about the flavors you are picking up in lagers. Do you notice the same thing in German or Bohemian style lagers using noble hops as well? A well made (Continental) lager should give off floral to spicey, pleasant bitterness, and certainly not the flavors you describe.

FWIW, I'm not a fan of all the juicy, New World hops in lagers (IPLs or Italian) either. If I want hops I'll drink an APA or WC IPA with Northwest or maybe NZ or Aussie hops. But my preferred beer for several decades has been either a Continental lager or American blonde ale.

 

[Broothru]

Total Hijack Alert!!!

I know this is probably an off-the-wall random question, but what exactly is the reason we pre-heat strike water to dough-in temperature? I'm asking since underletting water into the grainbed is a preferred LoDO technique to prevent O2 pickup from splashing. But any risk of O2 pickup is increased with a higher water temperature. Wouldn't it make more sense to mash in at ambient temperature and slowly heat the strike water to mash temperatures?

I can see how a direct-fired mash tun could risk scorching or temperature stratification within the grain column, but in a recirculating mash water system it seems like it would result in a sort of poor man's step mash while also reducing the risk of dough balls and shortening the time to achieve conversion.

I'm sure I'm missing something obvious. Thoughts or opinions?

 

[bwible]

Total Hijack Alert!!!

I know this is probably an off-the-wall random question, but what exactly is the reason we pre-heat strike water to dough-in temperature? I'm asking since underletting water into the grainbed is a preferred LoDO technique to prevent O2 pickup from splashing. But any risk of O2 pickup is increased with a higher water temperature. Wouldn't it make more sense to mash in at ambient temperature and slowly heat the strike water to mash temperatures?

I can see how a direct-fired mash tun could risk scorching or temperature stratification within the grain column, but in a recirculating mash water system it seems like it would result in a sort of poor man's step mash while also reducing the risk of dough balls and shortening the time to achieve conversion.

I'm sure I'm missing something obvious. Thoughts or opinions?

I’ll take a shot. My thought is that it has to do with enzymes and specific temps where different enzymes are active. Mashing at lower temps, as a step mash would at least partly include, leads to higher fermentability and a lower finishing gravity. For beers where you want a little more body, it would make sense to go straight to 155, 157, or whatever and not include any rests at lower temps. As I understand it, malt used to be undermodified in days past so brewers used step mashes to correctly mash the grain. Today, virtually no malt is undermodified, so step mashes with lower temp rests are not necessary. In beers where you want a thinner profile and a lower finishing gravity, lower temp rests or lower temp mashes would be appropriate.

 

[Broothru]

I’ll take a shot. My thought is that it has to do with enzymes and specific temps where different enzymes are active. Mashing at lower temps, as a step mash would at least partly include, leads to higher fermentability and a lower finishing gravity. For beers where you want a little more body, it would make sense to go straight to 155, 157, or whatever and not include any rests at lower temps. As I understand it, malt used to be undermodified in days past so brewers used step mashes to correctly mash the grain. Today, virtually no malt is undermodified, so step mashes with lower temp rests are not necessary. In beers where you want a thinner profile and a lower finishing gravity, lower temp rests or lower temp mashes would be appropriate.

I agree with the facts you outlined. The thing is, I almost always do a step mash, actually a Hoch-Kurz mash (German for "high, low"). Dough-in @ 60C/140F, Beta rest @ 62C/144F, Alpha rest @ 70C/158F, Mash-out @ 77C/170F. Mostly I'm wondering what would happen if I doughed-in at 21C/70F, turned on the circulation pump and began heating the water to strike temperature. Usually it takes me anywhere from :20~:30 minutes to heat the strike water from 70F to 144F. A lot of enzymatic things happen in that temperature range like acidification, liquefaction and protein break down, all items which are generally not advantageous (though mostly neutral) to modern well-modified. I'm just wondering if there's something I'm not counting on that could be detrimental to the mash.

I guess since Beta amylase becomes active around 130F that the wort might get a little thin unless I shortened the Beta rest by about :10 minutes, but other than that I'm not seeing the downside. Since it's always been done this way (pre-heat the water, then mash in) there's got to be some reason that I'm overlooking. My mash profile takes around 2 hours, give or take. If that can be shortened by :20~:30 minutes I'd be pleased.

 

[bwible]

Since I got my Foundry, I like having the temp control and I have done step mash with it (just because I can) at least once. I was making a lighter beer though, lager recipe fetmented as an ale.

 

[Bilsch]

Loitering in the protein test range could be harmful to your foam. Also it’s best to get above ~143F as soon as possible to inactivate LOX. Another issue is you will have started the clock ticking on beta but are well below gel temp of the starch which could harm your attenuation. It’s good to keep in mind when practicing low oxygen, especially mashing, it’s best to get in and get out to limit the time of exposure to oxygen.

 

[Broothru]

Loitering in the protein test range could be harmful to your foam. Also it’s best to get above ~143F as soon as possible to inactivate LOX. Another issue is you will have started the clock ticking on beta but are well below gel temp of the starch which could harm your attenuation. It’s good to keep in mind when practicing low oxygen, especially mashing, it’s best to get in and get out to limit the time of exposure to oxygen.

Good points. That's the type of information I was looking for. I had neglected to consider gelatinization of the starch and hadn't even thought about LOX since I assumed it was eliminated by YOS and Trifecta. Don't they mostly remove LOX or inactivate it once the YOS is denatured?

I'll be sticking to the proven methodology of heating strike water, then doughing-in.

 

[Bilsch]

Good points. That's the type of information I was looking for. I had neglected to consider gelatinization of the starch and hadn't even thought about LOX since I assumed it was eliminated by YOS and Trifecta. Don't they mostly remove LOX or inactivate it once the YOS is denatured?

I'll be sticking to the proven methodology of heating strike water, then doughing-in.

Removing the oxygen from the water is relatively easy, on the other hand getting it out of/off of the grain is nearly impossible. Even with a lot of meta in the strike water you are going to get a non-zero amount of O2 at the beginning of the mash and LOX will do some damage unless it's thermally deactivated. That being said, a strike temperature which is too warm will tend to swell the grain and trap air bubbles especially in finely milled grist. The more air that is entrained the worse the DO spike on dough in, so it's a balance.

There has been a great deal of work done on best practices for low oxygen mashing and would agree it's a good idea to stick with proven methodology.

 

[Broothru]

Removing the oxygen from the water is relatively easy, on the other hand getting it out of/off of the grain is nearly impossible. Even with a lot of meta in the strike water you are going to get a non-zero amount of O2 at the beginning of the mash and LOX will do some damage unless it's thermally deactivated. That being said, a strike temperature which is too warm will tend to swell the grain and trap air bubbles especially in finely milled grist. The more air that is entrained the worse the DO spike on dough in, so it's a balance.

There has been a great deal of work done on best practices for low oxygen mashing and would agree it's a good idea to stick with proven methodology.

Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't aware of the cause or deleterious effect of LOX during mash. Given that LOX is neutralized in the high 140s F, is it poor practice to perform Beta rests at 144F-145F range? Beta amylase activity peaks at ~143F, but is still active well past that point. Perhaps doughing-in at greater than 145F and conducting a Beta rest at that point would be better from an LOB perspective?

 

[FswBG]

Today, virtually no malt is undermodified, so step mashes with lower temp rests are not necessary.

Alright, I'll bite. I am under the impression German malts aren't modified to the extent of those malted in the US and that it's good practice to incorporate a short protein rest and step mash on German lagers. I have been on a lager kick lately and have not experienced any issues with head retention personally. I often see step mashing gets labeled as 'unnecessary', but I have found it to be a great tool for fine tuning.

 

[Broothru]

Alright, I'll bite. I am under the impression German malts aren't modified to the extent of those malted in the US and that it's good practice to incorporate a short protein rest and step mash on German lagers. I have been on a lager kick lately and have not experienced any issues with head retention personally. I often see step mashing gets labeled as 'unnecessary', but I have found it to be a great tool for fine tuning.

I used some BestMalz pils last year after reading an article that quoted their head malster who said that in his opinion a protein rest was necessary to get the full benefit of their grains. The specific one I was using was MaltGems.

I almost always do step mashes but have stopped doing protein rests for my lagers, mashing in just a couple degrees F below my targeted Beta rest temperature. I did a protein rest with the BestMalz, but due to the crush (MaltGems only comes pre-crushed) I was getting a lot of grain blowing past the recirculation screen in my mash tun. Long story short, the mash was a disaster and I can't really speak to whether the protein rest did anything or not. The salvaged wort did make a drinkable beer, but it had a perpetual chill haze that never fully went away. Still have 10# of MaltGems that I don't know what to do with.

Since BestMalz seems to be a very popular commercial malt among brewers, either the pro brewers think it's undermodified, or that it needs a protein rest because that's the way they've always done things.

 

[bwible]

BestMalz Pilsen is what I have too. I bought a sack of it from a local brewpub here because I could not get to my “local” homebrew shop, which is over an hour away. Mine was also pre-crushed. I like it.

The question was why would brewers heat mash water to temp and mash in at temp rather than just mash in cold and heat up/step up. Maybe I got off topic a little. I’ve been reading about Hockkurz and I don’t see a problem with it for lagers. If I were making a stout or an IPA I would not step mash.

 

[Bilsch]

Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't aware of the cause or deleterious effect of LOX during mash. Given that LOX is neutralized in the high 140s F, is it poor practice to perform Beta rests at 144F-145F range? Beta amylase activity peaks at ~143F, but is still active well past that point. Perhaps doughing-in at greater than 145F and conducting a Beta rest at that point would be better from an LOB perspective?

The deactivation of LOX is temperature and pH dependent and in the mash that is at 62C. No real surprise then that the most common first rest temp in German macro breweries is the same.

This idea that Continental malts are under modified still persists in homebrew circles but can be easily checked on the malt analysis sheets available from every European maltster by looking up the code on the bag. I haven’t seen anything less than fully modified in many years.

 

[Birrofilo]

I know this is probably an off-the-wall random question, but what exactly is the reason we pre-heat strike water to dough-in temperature? [..] Wouldn't it make more sense to mash in at ambient temperature and slowly heat the strike water to mash temperatures?

I think there are two main reasons:

the first is that the count of the mash minutes in the phase should be repeatable, or you executing a given recipe. If you dough in the grains, and then make a long step-up to the first mashing temperature, and then leave the grains in the water for the duration of your mashing step, you have probably let the enzymes work more time than if you do mash-in with hot water. It's not any more predictable, because everybody will have a different ramping speed. One should use a recipe which is calculated for that kind of ramp-up;

the second is that many homebrewers, especially on the other side of the Ocean, use a plastic "picnic cooler" to mash, and that works if both the cooler and the strike water is at temperature at the beginning of the mash.

 

[monkeymath]

I know this thread has been dormant for a while, but it's a valuable resource for people dipping their toes in LODO brewing methods.

I want to improve my beers, but not move to an entirely new setup: I'll keep my Grainfather, I'll chill using the included counterflow chiller, and I'll bottle condition my beers. Many of the "reduced oxygen" methods discussed here and elsewhere can be implemented even under these circumstances, but I'm unsure if that approach is at all sensible in that I might be battling minor issues while leaving more significant vectors of oxidation unhandled.

One issue that I have not yet found addressed: the recirculation pipe on the Grainfather will invariably contain air (or won't it?) - won't that alone oxidize my wort beyond oblivion?

 

[hopjuice_71]

I know this thread has been dormant for a while, but it's a valuable resource for people dipping their toes in LODO brewing methods.

I want to improve my beers, but not move to an entirely new setup: I'll keep my Grainfather, I'll chill using the included counterflow chiller, and I'll bottle condition my beers. Many of the "reduced oxygen" methods discussed here and elsewhere can be implemented even under these circumstances, but I'm unsure if that approach is at all sensible in that I might be battling minor issues while leaving more significant vectors of oxidation unhandled.

One issue that I have not yet found addressed: the recirculation pipe on the Grainfather will invariably contain air (or won't it?) - won't that alone oxidize my wort beyond oblivion?

I experimented with LODO on my Grainfather. Are you talking about the return system in the centre of the malt pipe? If so, that is an oxidation machine. I got rid of even well before testing out LODO (see the second paragraph of post #46).

 

[monkeymath]

I experimented with LODO on my Grainfather. Are you talking about the return system in the centre of the malt pipe? If so, that is an oxidation machine. I got rid of even well before testing out LODO (see the second paragraph of post #46).

No, I don't mean the overflow pipe, but the small pipe (on the outside of the unit) which leads to the racking arm and then a silicone tube, through which the wort is recirculated during the mash.

 

[hopjuice_71]

No, I don't mean the overflow pipe, but the small pipe (on the outside of the unit) which leads to the racking arm and then a silicone tube, through which the wort is recirculated during the mash.

Ah, right. With care all of that can be purged. If the connections are tight no air should be introduced, though some would question the oxygen permeability of the silicon tubing.

 

[SaltNeck]

On low end systems not designed for LODO you hedge your bets and take what you get. You patch the system the best you can for LODO and run with it. By that time and with no objective measurement, simply due to the stresses you incurred while learning and making your new system LODO, you'll have convinced yourself that your beers are better and you'll be a staunch proponent of low dissolved oxygen brewing.

 

[hopjuice_71]

On low end systems not designed for LODO you hedge your bets and take what you get. You patch the system the best you can for LODO and run with it. By that time and with no objective measurement, simply due to the stresses you incurred while learning and making your new system LODO, you'll have convinced yourself that your beers are better and you'll be a staunch proponent of low dissolved oxygen brewing.

LOL. I convinced myself of the opposite. It took a fair bit of effort and time to get things working because of the patches you mention. I believed that I achieved (at least some of) the mystical qualities of a LODO beer, but I didn't actually like the result that much. I confirmed this by tracking down several commercial examples of LODO beers and found I didn't really care for those either. Apparently I'm not just OK with a degree of oxidation, but I prefer it Just my personal preference, but I 100% admit to a crappy palate. I'm totally OK with this because, overall, it simplified the brewing process for me (and reduced anxiety about where O2 was getting in). I did, however, keep some of the components of the process because they actually made my process easier and equipment perform a little better (e.g. grain conditioning, lowering in the malt pipe with grain already in it, getting rid of the overflow pipe, spunding, etc), but I no longer worry about being full LODO.

 

[Bilsch]

On low end systems not designed for LODO you must use more sulfites.

FTFY

 

[marc1]

FTFY

How much more would you recommend? I just got in some Brewtan and some fresh NaMeta. I already have bread yeast and sugar for deoxygenating the mash water.

That video linked somewhere here where the guy tried several different "levels" of Lodo stringency convinced me that I may be able to see a difference without perfect hotside lodo practices.

The bad (for lodo) I BIAB, can't underlet, dunk sparge, have no mash cap, and use a copper counterflow chiller.

The good - low intensity boil, no stirring/splashing during cooldown like there would be for an immersion chiller, I have Brewtan and NaMeta, and cold side O2 mitigation is sealed up nice.

My thoughts so far on this:

1g/gallon each of bread yeast and table sugar to the strike and sparge water. How long does this take to work? If I decide to brew the day of, is a few hours sufficient?

I might have a smaller lid that I could use as a mash cap - I don't think it will fit perfect, but better than nothing?

For mash and sparge I'd have 200mg/gallon on Brewtan
For boil, I'd add 100mg/gallon Brewtan

For mash and sparge, I'd add may 100-150mg/gallon NaMeta (thoughts? - seems like people used 100mg/gallon, but if I'm being sloppy then maybe 50% more? or double it? 200mg/gallon would be getting up to ~50ppm sodium, so I probably don't want to go much higher than that. Does this also add sulfate? I may have seen something on here about it, but can't remember it/can't find it right now. If I need to reduce a gypsum addition, then that would be good to know.

 

[Bilsch]

How much more would you recommend? I just got in some Brewtan and some fresh NaMeta.
I think with your conditions in the 50ppm range of meta would be most beneficial. Remember though with higher doses like this it is imperative to expend the sulfites after chilling and before pitching the yeast by oxygenating the wort. Use roughly twice the O2 as you did before meta and best to do it in two steps with say 10 minutes rest between.

That video linked somewhere here where the guy tried several different "levels" of Lodo stringency convinced me that I may be able to see a difference without perfect hotside lodo practices. The bad (for lodo) I BIAB, can't underlet, dunk sparge, have no mash cap, and use a copper counterflow chiller. The good - low intensity boil, no stirring/splashing during cooldown like there would be for an immersion chiller, I have Brewtan and NaMeta, and cold side O2 mitigation is sealed up nice.
Every little bit of oxygen you can exclude from the mash will preserve more antioxidants for later. With your particular system there will be challenges however clever brewers figure out ways around the impediments. The odds of getting it perfect the first time out are slim but you will learn and improve.

My thoughts so far on this:
1g/gallon each of bread yeast and table sugar to the strike and sparge water. How long does this take to work? If I decide to brew the day of, is a few hours sufficient?
At a temperature of 100-110F it takes roughly 25 minutes so best to leave for an hour to be sure.

I might have a smaller lid that I could use as a mash cap - I don't think it will fit perfect, but better than nothing?
Yes, for sure!

For mash and sparge, I'd add may 100-150mg/gallon NaMeta (thoughts? - seems like people used 100mg/gallon, but if I'm being sloppy then maybe 50% more? or double it? 200mg/gallon would be getting up to ~50ppm sodium, so I probably don't want to go much higher than that. Does this also add sulfate? I may have seen something on here about it, but can't remember it/can't find it right now. If I need to reduce a gypsum addition, then that would be good to know.
50ppm for the mash and say 20ppm for the sparge is a good place to start.
For every 10ppm sulfites added you will get 10.1ppm additional sulfate in your water.

 

[marc1]

Thanks!
Is there a place with the calculations laid out for ppm sulfite additions for NaMeta? My scratch paper calculation got me 50ppm sulfite from 66mg/L NaMeta, but my chemistry is rusty. This is ~250mg/gallon.

I did a lot of web searches, and couldn't find anything that laid out the g/L NaMeta to ppm sulfite.

 

[marc1]

@Bilsch :
When people refer to ppm sulfites, are they referring to ppm of NaMeta, or the ppm of just the metabusulfite part of the NaMeta, or the ppm of the sulfites in solution once the NaMeta is dissolved?

 

[marc1]

For mash and sparge, I'd add may 100-150mg/gallon NaMeta (thoughts? - seems like people used 100mg/gallon, but if I'm being sloppy then maybe 50% more? or double it? 200mg/gallon would be getting up to ~50ppm sodium, so I probably don't want to go much higher than that. Does this also add sulfate? I may have seen something on here about it, but can't remember it/can't find it right now. If I need to reduce a gypsum addition, then that would be good to know.

50ppm for the mash and say 20ppm for the sparge is a good place to start.
For every 10ppm sulfites added you will get 10.1ppm additional sulfate in your water.

@Bilsch

I'm planning to do this soon - when you recommend ppm for the mash and sparge, are you referring to mg/L of Sodium Metabisulfite?

Or are you referring to the actual concentration of the sulfites themselves in solution? If this, do you have a starting point for me for calculating it? Something like x mg/L sodium metabisulfite = y ppm sulfite would be super helpful. Or is there a calculator to use somewhere?

Thanks!