• Please visit and share your knowledge at our sister communities:
  • If you have not, please join our official Homebrewing Facebook Group!

    Homebrewing Facebook Group

All In One Brewing Systems and Hot Side Aeration

Homebrew Talk

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Do you have a suggested reading list?

Kunze is probably the book where I found the most comprehensive treatment of the effects of oxidation, though it is scattered through the book because different chapters deal with different steps of the brewing process, but you may have some luck using the index. Also you can find a lot of pointers here and here.

EDIT: oh god, the forum is selectively censoring links to themodernbrewhouse.com website, this is getting ridiculous... also your profile is private so can't PM you. Oh well, I'm sure you can find the right pages by yourself.
 
Last edited:
Ok but on a scale of 1 to 100 to what extent will this adversely impact a batch of beer? With 1 being unnoticeable to the average beer drinker and 100 meaning the beer is rendered undrinkable? I'm not trying to be snarky but actually trying to justify the additional costs in time and equipment in relation to the added benefit.
 
If you (for example) enjoy Pilsner Urquell, either (and preferably) on tap at the source, or in exported cans or their newer amber bottles, then you are not being negatively impacted at all by their hot side aeration.
 
Kunze is probably the book where I found the most comprehensive treatment of the effects of oxidation, though it is scattered through the book because different chapters deal with different steps of the brewing process, but you may have some luck using the index. Also you can find a lot of pointers here and here.
Thank you for the references! The "edited" link won't be hard to figure out.
 
Ok but on a scale of 1 to 100 to what extent will this adversely impact a batch of beer? With 1 being unnoticeable to the average beer drinker and 100 meaning the beer is rendered undrinkable? I'm not trying to be snarky but actually trying to justify the additional costs in time and equipment in relation to the added benefit.

Honestly, how anyone could really answer that question about any brewing procedure?
 
Ok but on a scale of 1 to 100 to what extent will this adversely impact a batch of beer? With 1 being unnoticeable to the average beer drinker and 100 meaning the beer is rendered undrinkable? I'm not trying to be snarky but actually trying to justify the additional costs in time and equipment in relation to the added benefit.

Honestly, I think the answers are quite personal ones. If you and others really enjoy your beer and it gets consumed before you notice any "issues," then don't worry about it. If you really enjoy your beer but you feel there are some knobs you can twiddle for possible improvements to various aspects (e.g. long term stability), then LoDO/LOB provides a new set of knobs you can twiddle.

In my opinion, you don't have to go all in, and you may choose how far you want to go for certain beers. For example, I have adopted some very simple host-side practices for all of my brewing, such as a mash cap and underletting (well, the grainfather equivalent), because it was so simple, cheap, and easy to implement (didn't impact my brew day in the slightest). For most beers my simple LOB implementations end here, yet I do believe there is some small tangible benefits to beer stability. For pilsners I go as all in as I can with my system. When really fresh, these pilsners don't taste a whole lot different to me than without LOB practices, though I fully admit to having a pretty poor palate. After a lot of experimentation tasting commercial LoDO brews and making my own I realized that I don't experience the purported taste benefits. The big change is that the (mostly-) LOB pilsners have much better storage properties - they stay fresh for much longer. The hard part is that one can only determine if the knob twiddling is worth it after they actually try it for themselves. As I have outlined, however, making some small positive changes in this direction is pretty easy.

On another note, when I make my annual English bitter to serve as a "cask" ale, I intentionally brew somewhat splashy as it more closely emulates the product I drank while living in England and the beer gets consumed in one night at a party anyways.

So, I see it as some knob twiddling one can do, if they want.
 
Ok but on a scale of 1 to 100 to what extent will this adversely impact a batch of beer? With 1 being unnoticeable to the average beer drinker and 100 meaning the beer is rendered undrinkable? I'm not trying to be snarky but actually trying to justify the additional costs in time and equipment in relation to the added benefit.

I think that's the catch, right? It raises questions on what you're wanting to achieve in brewing. (Not referring to you personally, but in general)

Are you brewing with the average beer drinker in mind or do you explore and push yourself to try new styles/practices?
I think it's fine either way, there's nothing wrong with making hazy or pastry beers.

Do you turn a blind eye to the science in favor of comfortability and time savings?
Some people have kids, love football, or have other interests. There's nothing wrong with that.

Call it chasing that perfect pint on a memorable trip you had or the pursuit of giving 100% making the best beer you can. Again, there is no wrong answer per se, but ignorantly marginalizing the effects that others are finding value in is counterintuitive to the brewing community. I see a lot of it 'in the wild' outside of this LOB forum and it deterred me for a long time unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
I pay attention to oxygen post-fermentation but have never worried about hot side aeration. I can see that no-sparge would be the way to go to reduce adding oxygen to the wort pre-boil. But don't most commercial breweries fly sparge, which would introduce a ton of oxygen? As I said, I'm not an expert in this, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
I believe cold water is capable of holding more dissolved oxygen than warm water, and the same goes for wort. With a low pressure recirculating mash, hot side aeration can be kept to a minimum, although not eliminated completely. With that said when the wort is boiled it is no longer able to retain a good portion of the dissolved oxygen absorbed in the mash. How much harm can that do and to what extent will it adversely impact a batch of beer?

I do closed Co2 transfers from the fermentor to StarSan purged kegs and see a big improvement in beer stability and taste BTW.

Reasonable assumption, and as to gross amounts of D.O. absorbed during an extended boil vs. low temperature regimes of the hot side I really don't know. But that's not the relevant question.

The goal of low oxygen brewing is to reduce the amount of ANY D.O. in the wort as close to zero as possible. To put the volumetric amount of D.O. into perspective, one LOB proponent described the amount of a "beer capful" of D.O. as sufficient to measurably degrade both the flavor and long term stability of a 5 gallon batch of beer.

The relavent amount of D.O. is measured in parts per BILLION. As small as that sounds, it is actually quite easy to achieve very low PPB numbers in the low double digit PPB range in strike water using the yeast oxygen scavenging techniques advocated and empirically measured by the LOB brewers. The only equipment required is a measuring spoon, some bread yeast, and :15 minutes of patience.

Of course the D.O. levels will rise as the bread yeast gets denatured with rising temperatures in the mash, but a simple dosing of 2 grams "Tifecta" will help sequester oxygen (and chelate gallotannins) from dough-in to post-boil chilling, when fresh beer yeast gets pitched which scavenges any reabsorbed O2 as fermentation begins.

Those two steps alone are easily achievable ways to reducing oxygenation on the hot side, and simple first steps in improving your beer by reducing oxidative stresses.

Brooo Brother
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's fair to say that most all-in-one systems are not designed for low oxygen brewing. Seems like that could be a niche for future product development, I see for example stout tanks seems pretty serious about low oxygen designs maybe they will come up with something although not sure the all-in-one customer is their target.
https://conical-fermenter.com/blog/low-oxygen-brewing/
To me the current all in ones are designed to deliver a complete and easy to use electric all-grain system with a small footprint. Complete is the key factor...buy this and you can start making beer... not a whole bunch of parts from a bunch of different suppliers. They are aimed at people that enjoy making beer more than they enjoy building brewing systems.

How would someone that was not interested in building a brewing system even know that homebrewed beer is a thing and can actually be really good? Easy...good homebrew is all over the place. A lot of it is just ok but it's just not that hard to find someone that is making beer at home and doing it well. So a quick google search about how to make beer and pretty soon you are comparing various techniques and then stumble across Grainfather or Spike Solo and dang I could be brewing next weekend...

But that isn't the case for low oxygen beer at this time. I've never been offered a low oxygen homebrew. I'd love to try it but it is just not around. Perhaps if more craft brewers go in that direction the instagram kids will follow...
 
Honestly, I think the answers are quite personal ones. If you and others really enjoy your beer and it gets consumed before you notice any "issues," then don't worry about it. If you really enjoy your beer but you feel there are some knobs you can twiddle for possible improvements to various aspects (e.g. long term stability), then LoDO/LOB provides a new set of knobs you can twiddle.

In my opinion, you don't have to go all in, and you may choose how far you want to go for certain beers. For example, I have adopted some very simple host-side practices for all of my brewing, such as a mash cap and underletting (well, the grainfather equivalent), because it was so simple, cheap, and easy to implement (didn't impact my brew day in the slightest). For most beers my simple LOB implementations end here, yet I do believe there is some small tangible benefits to beer stability. For pilsners I go as all in as I can with my system. When really fresh, these pilsners don't taste a whole lot different to me than without LOB practices, though I fully admit to having a pretty poor palate. After a lot of experimentation tasting commercial LoDO brews and making my own I realized that I don't experience the purported taste benefits. The big change is that the (mostly-) LOB pilsners have much better storage properties - they stay fresh for much longer. The hard part is that one can only determine if the knob twiddling is worth it after they actually try it for themselves. As I have outlined, however, making some small positive changes in this direction is pretty easy.

On another note, when I make my annual English bitter to serve as a "cask" ale, I intentionally brew somewhat splashy as it more closely emulates the product I drank while living in England and the beer gets consumed in one night at a party anyways.

So, I see it as some knob twiddling one can do, if they want.
Hear, hear! What HE said ^^^
 
Where do LOX-less base malts shake out with regard to reducing oxidative stress on the hot side? It seems that they may have tremendous 'hot side relative' bang for the buck.
 
For example, I have adopted some very simple host-side practices for all of my brewing, such as a mash cap and underletting (well, the grainfather equivalent), because it was so simple, cheap, and easy to implement (didn't impact my brew day in the slightest).

I am interested in simple, cheap, easy solutions.

Is a "mash cap" something that simply "floats" over the mash? Can Stainless Steel float over the mash? Or is it something more complicated than a SS cap with the right diameter?

In my AIO kettle, the wort is recirculated from the top, but presumably it is possible to adopt a flexible silicon hose that puts the coming wort on top of the mash, below the mash cap.

May I ask for a picture of your mash cap?

Regarding underletting, which I suppose means introducing the strike water from below, would the following procedure work the same?

a) putting the water first in the kettle;
b) put the "pipe" of a BIAP system such as the Grainfather on the kettle, in elevated position ("sparge position");
c) put the grains into the "pipe";
d) slowly lower the pipe so that the water wets the grain from below.

Finally, is there any adverse side effect if one puts the grains in the water (or the water up the grains) when the water is still fairly cold, so that the oxygenation that happens during the dough-in doesn't happen with a relatively hot temperature?
 
I am interested in simple, cheap, easy solutions.

Is a "mash cap" something that simply "floats" over the mash? Can Stainless Steel float over the mash? Or is it something more complicated than a SS cap with the right diameter?

In my AIO kettle, the wort is recirculated from the top, but presumably it is possible to adopt a flexible silicon hose that puts the coming wort on top of the mash, below the mash cap.

May I ask for a picture of your mash cap?

Regarding underletting, which I suppose means introducing the strike water from below, would the following procedure work the same?

a) putting the water first in the kettle;
b) put the "pipe" of a BIAP system such as the Grainfather on the kettle, in elevated position ("sparge position");
c) put the grains into the "pipe";
d) slowly lower the pipe so that the water wets the grain from below.

Finally, is there any adverse side effect if one puts the grains in the water (or the water up the grains) when the water is still fairly cold, so that the oxygenation that happens during the dough-in doesn't happen with a relatively hot temperature?

I'm not very enabled with uploading images, but it is easy to describe. The basis of my mash cap is a stainless steel cake pan I bought for <10$ on Amazon. It is roughly the same diameter as the malt pipe and floats on the mash. My grainfather also recirculates to the top so the recirculation is now delivered through the centre of the cake plate to the top of the mash. I had extra hardware on hand so I used a 1/2 inch quick disconnect and bulkhead to easily connect the recirculation tube to the top side of the cake plate. I used a stainless steel tee on the bottom so that the liquid is returned to the top of the mash and below the cake plate at right angles, so as not to bore a hole in the mash. The bulkhead/tee arrangement was because of what I had on hand. One could envision a myriad of simpler and cheaper solutions.

As for my underletting, it is another simple grainfather hack. First, the overflow pipe really annoyed me, so I got rid of it, plugged the hole in the centre of the false bottom, and put a finer stainless steel mesh overtop of the false bottom to create a better filter. I condition my grain so mashes never get stuck - I can recirculate on full flow if I want. Anyways, I mill the grain directly into the malt pipe. Immediately after milling, I use the procedure you mention and slowly lower the grain-filled malt pipe into the grainfather that already contains my water at strike temperature. Zero foam, zero dough balls.
 
Thanks @hopjuice_71

I use the upper screen filter when I recirculate. I get that you eliminated the upper screen filter and only use the false bottom and the mash cap. I would like to continue using the upper screen filter, on the assumption that the water falls more uniformly on the grains (both as far as volume and temperature are concerned).

It should be easy to split the recirculating flow with a T and pass the two silicon hoses between the mash cap and the upper screen filter.
 
I have an all in one system, and have been following LoDO procedures on the cold side. I have been hesitant to dive into hot side changes though:
I have not seen a great explanation for the practice of avoiding all hot side oxygen, only to blow pure O2 into the wort before pitching yeast. Yeast need O2. Doesn’t the wort oxygenation undo most of the effort of hot side LoDO?
Could someone explain what I am missing?
 
I have an all in one system, and have been following LoDO procedures on the cold side. I have been hesitant to dive into hot side changes though:
I have not seen a great explanation for the practice of avoiding all hot side oxygen, only to blow pure O2 into the wort before pitching yeast. Yeast need O2. Doesn’t the wort oxygenation undo most of the effort of hot side LoDO?
Could someone explain what I am missing?

No, because oxidation happens much more slowly at pitching temperature, and because yeast is quick at consuming oxygen.
 
I have an all in one system, and have been following LoDO procedures on the cold side. I have been hesitant to dive into hot side changes though:
I have not seen a great explanation for the practice of avoiding all hot side oxygen, only to blow pure O2 into the wort before pitching yeast. Yeast need O2. Doesn’t the wort oxygenation undo most of the effort of hot side LoDO?
Could someone explain what I am missing?

The Low Dissolved-Oxygen proponents are not against aeration of wort, although they suggest 8ppm as the maximum (that's a quantity which can be reached with "aearation" without having recourse to "oxygenation") and only after pitching.

http://www.germanbrewing.net/docs/Brewing-Bavarian-Helles-v2.pdf
Generally speaking LODO proponents aim to obtain the subtle malt flavours and hop aroma that would characterize certain styles (Bavarian Helles as far as mal flavour, and NEIPA or such as far as hop aroma) and that would be compromised by even a small oxydation.

If your main beer style is British Mild, a Stout, a Belgian Ale etc. you probably don't have to worry too much.

If your favourite style is Bavarian Helles and you miss that "elusive character" other producers show, then certainly you should investigate this method further.

My personal perception is that in its more extreme form it looks like a good definition of "anal homebrewing" but never say never, maybe in a few years I will be all into it. I am actually glad that some people is making experiments with this technique, which is very "young" and will certainly evolve over time.
 
I have an all in one system, and have been following LoDO procedures on the cold side. I have been hesitant to dive into hot side changes though:
I have not seen a great explanation for the practice of avoiding all hot side oxygen, only to blow pure O2 into the wort before pitching yeast. Yeast need O2. Doesn’t the wort oxygenation undo most of the effort of hot side LoDO?
Could someone explain what I am missing?

It's actually a question of time and sequencing. Oxidation is a continual and cumulative process that can't be undone. What I mean is that any oxidative process that occurs anywhere in the hot side or cold side cannot be reversed or eliminated once it has occurred, and will continue occurring as long as there is dissolved O2 present (or gaseous O2 available to go into solution). The oxidation that happens when you dough-in will be there until the last drop in the last glass is drunk. It will never go away, and will only get more pronounced as time goes by.

While true that we add oxygen to the wort in the fermenter to help boost the start of fermentation, the yeast that we pitch at that time consumes most of that oxygen in very short order. The LoDO process actually recommends to NOT oxygenate the wort until after the yeast has been pitched (the reverse of what we accept to be the "normal" sequence) because the brief time between injecting O2 and pitching yeast will result in a small measure of oxidation that cannot be removed once it occurs. If you use dry yeast there's no real need to oxygenate the wort at all, since the dried yeast granules bring their own glycogen reserves to the fermentation party and don't really need any supplemental oxygen to get started. You could argue that oxygenating a wort that you intend to pitch with dry yeast will actually do permanent damage to your beer.

Focusing only on cold side oxidation ignores the permanent damage already being done to your beer by not addressing the hot side (pre-fermentation) processes. You're only taking steps to reduce further oxidation of beer that's already, to some degree, already oxidized.

TL;DR: In the final analysis what we're doing is not eliminating oxidation because we can never fully do that. What we're doing is reducing D.O. and gaseous O2 as much as we can within reason in an attempt to make better beer. Just remember that the oxidative process, which occurs at virtually every stage in the brewing process, is cumulative, is permanent, does degrade the quality and stability of the finished beer, can't be completely eliminated, but can be mitigated. The degree to which you want to work at improving the final product is a personal decision, as is what is "good enough" to meet your needs and expectations. I've found that incorporating many (not all) LoDO techniques has neither been cumbersome nor extravagantly expensive. YMMV. I have seen a marked improvement in my beers, especially lagers, without a disproportionate investment of time, money or effort.
 
I wish there was a detailed step by step guide to conducting a five gallon LODO brew. If there is would someone tell me where plz?
 
I wish there was a detailed step by step guide to conducting a five gallon LODO brew. If there is would someone tell me where plz?

Indeed, but to keep this on subject, seeing as how I never intended this thread to wind up being moved into the Low Oxygen Brewing Forum, I would like to see this step by step guide be generated to apply to the All In Ones.
 
I wish there was a detailed step by step guide to conducting a five gallon LODO brew. If there is would someone tell me where plz?

Sure. I’ll take a stab at it. There are a lot of old posts about low oxygen brewing, and the German Brewers forum online has quite a few links to good information. Many of the links are dead however. Don’t know why, above my paygrade. Unfortunately, the individual who was the defacto resident authority is no longer a participant on this forum, for whatever reason. The articles and the data you’ll come across can get pretty deep, pretty fast. There’s also some silly notions on both sides of the issue that are strongly held pro and con that has caused unnecessary controversy to a topic that shouldn’t be controversial (or adversarial). Sad. We’re just here to talk about making better beer. With that disclosure…..

I’m guessing you don’t want a Doctoral Dissertation. You’re looking for some Cliff Notes on low oxygen brewing, so let me give you my Low Down on LoDO for Dummies Like Me. I started down this path nearly two years ago from a thread and some post on this website. The ideas struck a chord with me so I started incorporating processes a little at a time to see how it worked, but equally important if it worked. As to the “how”, I found most processes easy to incorporate into my work flow. As to “if”, my conclusion was, “Yes, it does.” I’m not an evangelical convert who strictly follows protocols but rather a practitioner who found value in adopting some methods that blend in well with my goals and existing gear. After a few fits and starts, as well as back tracking from some dead ends, here’s what I do:


Night Before: Treat strike water. I de-oxygenate the water in my mash vessel (20L Braumeister all-in-one) with a method known as yeast oxygen scavenging (YOS) that involves adding one gram each of corn sugar and bread yeast per gallon of water pre-heated to about 95F (10 gals. water treated with 20 grams corn sugar/yeast mixture). Turn off the heat, sprinkle the mixture, cover the pot, go to bed. The yeast will consume virtually all the dissolved oxygen in the water in less than an hour, and keep it D.O.-free for up to a week.

Brew Day - Mash: Begin heating strike water, add brewing salts, crush grains. Don’t worry about the water. It will appear milky-white and cloudy from the yeast. The yeast will be denatured by the time the strike water reaches about 130~140F, and the ‘leftovers’ will remain in the grain bed following the mash. Just before dough-in I add ~2 grams of Trifecta blend of ascorbic acid, NaMeta, and BrewTan B which acts as an antioxidant to sequester any O2 that might otherwise get reabsorbed by the mash water during the mash and pre-boil transfer to the boil vessel. Then, dough-in and mash as usual. I’ve gone to full volume mash/no sparge for all lagers to avoid unnecessary splashing after the mash out. I’m not as concerned with ales, and I’ll usually “sparge” the grain bed in a separate bucket and top-off my pre-boil if the volume comes up short. But lagers are no sparge.

Brew Day - Boil: The only changes here are to only maintain a gentle boil rather than a vigorous roiling boil. Don’t worry, the DMS will boil off anyway. I also skim the hot break (“Oh, HORRORS!”). The DMS still boils off. Add hops on schedule. Near the end of boil I add another dosing of Trifecta (usually 1~1.5 grams). It does two things: additional antioxidant protection that carries over into the transfer to the fermenter, and the precipitation of various things floating around in the boil. It also lowers the pH slightly. At the end of boil, chill quickly. The only dispensation to LoDO here is the use of a stainless steel immersion coil instead of copper. Copper is only marginally better at heat transference than stainless, but copper can and will introduce oxides into the chilling wort. Once below 70C I’ll whirlpool and/or hop stand for about :20 minutes. You’ll be astounded at how clear the wort is from, I assume, the Trifecta.

Brew Day - Fermentation: I drain the wort from the bottom of the boil vessel and do a closed transfer with a March pump backwards through the transfer port on my sealed conical fermenter. The dip tube in the fermenter is positioned slightly below parallel with the ground, so the flow imparts a secondary whirlpool inside the fermenter. After transfer is complete I connect the glycol lines and chill the wort to slightly below my desired fermentation temperature. This helps to further settle any suspended solids that remain after the secondary whirlpool. Since the transfer was into a sealed fermenter and the chilled wort has some “carry-over” protection from the Trifecta, I’ll let it sit for an hour or two before pitching the yeast. It gives me time to do some cleanup from the brew day. Then I’ll dump out some settled trub through the bottom dump valve (usually 1~3 liters), then pitch my yeast, THEN oxygenate the wort, provided I’m using a liquid yeast. Dry yeast doesn’t need oxygenation. Let the wort free rise to fermentation temperature, set the controller, and let Mother Fermentation do her thing.

During Fermentation: While the yeasties are busy converting the various sugars into alcohol and CO2, I’ll clean any dirty kegs with PBW followed by a StarSan soak. After a day or so I’ll drain the StarSan and fill the keg to the very brim to overflowing with hot water and ~5 grams of NaMeta. When high krausen has passed, I hook up the blow-off line of the fermenter to the gas-in post on the NaMeta sanitized/de-oxygenated keg. A discharge line is attached to the liquid out post of the keg. The CO2 being released from the fermenter empties the NaMeta water out of the keg. If you have multiple kegs to clean, you can daisy chain them together to save chemicals. Once the liquid has been purged out by the CO2 discharge from the active fermentation, the kegs will be cleaned, sanitized and O2 purged with pure CO2.

Post-Fermentation and Packaging: I’ve gotten away from primary/secondary fermentations and now just do a single stage ferment. Usually it takes 5-7 days for ales and 10-14 days for lagers to ferment, though some ale yeasts are somewhat faster. Once I’m within 5 points of my expected final gravity I attach a spunding valve set to roughly 1 atm/14.7 psig and raise the temperature to 69~70F for both lagers and ales for several days until a stable FG is reached. Then I’ll cold crash to around 35F. Since the beer is pressurized and carbonated, there’s no worries with suck back. After a few days at a stable 35F I can rack to a serving keg in a closed transfer under pressure for conditioning and lagering. I set the pressure on the CO2 regulator to the pressure that matches the desired CO2 volumes for the 38F temperature of my beer fridge and serving kegerator. If I’m lucky, the only O2 exposure my beer gets is the trace amount that’s found in the industrial grade CO2 bottled gas used for transfer and serving.

Soup to nuts, that’s my process. With only a few notable exceptions, the procedures aren’t a whole lot different than what I was doing before I went Loco for LoDO. Many of the steps were integrated over time as I migrated out of plastic and into stainless steel, so nothing really seemed like a radical change at the time. It’s been more evolution than revolution, adding new gear and new methods along the way. But the collective result has been better beer, validated with more ribbons. This is where I am today, which is no guarantee that it’s where I’ll be tomorrow. I remain open to better ways to improve my process and my product.

Cheers.:bigmug:


Edit: Oops my bad. Didn't stop to realize that I'd gotten so far off topic. Apologies to all. Mods please feel free to move as appropriate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^^^ Broo Brother, thanks for the great writeup. Is Trifecta a packaged thing or do you make it from the chemicals? It seems like I could make a significant difference in my beers with minor tweeks to my process. The one thing for me is packaging. Purging kegs just seems like a huge hassle. Maybe nexst time I brew a hoppy PA or IPA, I'll try it to see what difference it makes. :mug:
 
Is there a difference between Na meta and K meta other than the obvious. Thanks
 
@Brooothru
May your off-topic be blessed.

If I can prosecute this diversion from the original topic (albeit certainly pertaining to it) I would like to ask:

a) composition of your mash "Trifecta" and of your boil "Trifecta". How much of each component. Specifically sulphites are quite a risk for flavour and something that makes me hesitate in general, quantity is of paramount importance.

b) Do you think as a instinctive opinion that if one bottles the beers (instead of practicing oxygen-free closed transfers) that would render all the effort vain, or do you think (as I presume) that there is nothing wasted in any effort to lower oxygen.

c) Do you use a mash cap during mashing?

d) Is there a specific reason for your use of sodium metabisulphite, or would you use potassium metabisulphite in its stead?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top