Discussion on malty German beers

[Bassman2003]

Trying is part of homebrewing for me. So I hope you can make progress MadKing. Even if you do not reach the goal right away you will still be learning. The idea of malty is difficult. It is not sweet but it is sort of sweet... A lot of commercial beers with much larger budgets do not have the flavor either, so that makes it even more difficult at the homebrew level.

 

[TheMadKing]

I just picked up WLP833 with high hopes that this yeast will bring me 90% of the way to where I want. I've never used it yet. Crossing fingers. Will report back after I am successful.

That's my favorite yeast and I'm using it this weekend as well

 

[applescrap]

Seriously? Recipes are a dime a dozen. What makes his recipes special? I would think any brewer creates and adapts recipes according to their capabilities (process, equipment, ingredients, etc...). It's the adaptation of a recipe to those capabilities and the knowledge of how to handle the inadequacies that make a master brewer.

Good points. But when Sierra nevada and the likes want a new recipe, I think they attack it with quite a bit of money and skill. Dr. Banforth said people pay him money for recipes on a podcast, he could probably tell you more about it. Made perfect sense to me. Small operations probably have less money to investigate but its my understanding they do work hard at it. Someone here knows more about that, but the juxtaposition of nick corona talking about how hard, but fun the work is to create these recipes over and over again till they win and your opinion that recipes are a dime a dozen is interesting. You are both right. I would probably only use his recipe though.

@madking hmm

 

[applescrap]

Aha, I have it . Switch, goals with win/medal and what I have said answers your questions. You said good vs masterful in your intial post. I offered two masters, and their methods. If everything they do is so, umm, "basic", then your beers are there.

Masterful, tireless dedication to recipe creation
Masterful, tireless, dedication to practice and process current and old
Masterful tireless dedication to learning and studying
Purchasing all the best equipment
Obtaining the best water
Masterfully and tirelessly seeking feedback and learning from it.
And on and on

Basic? How can I help you see better, how all of this relates to what you seek regardless of whether its winning or killer beer for the fam. Or maybe, I cant or you dont want me to, and thats cool. I wrote this for someone who perhaps is pleased with this information and wants to run with it.

 

[Die_Beerery]

An aside... 833 is ayingers bottling strain. It’s used because of its super poor flocc. A much better strain is 2206 or 835. Both flocc really well. 835 is a tad less sulfury. 835 is hard to get for homebrewers though. None though are gonna get you where you need to go I don’t think however. There isn’t too much magical about yeast.

 

[TheMadKing]

Aha, I have it . Switch, goals with win/medal and what I have said answers your questions. You said good vs masterful in your intial post. I offered two masters, and their methods. If everything they do is so, umm, "basic", then your beers are there.

Masterful, tireless dedication to recipe creation
Masterful, tireless, dedication to practice and process current and old
Masterful tireless dedication to learning and studying
Purchasing all the best equipment
Obtaining the best water
Masterfully and tirelessly seeking feedback and learning from it.
And on and on

Basic? How can I help you see better, how all of this relates to what you seek regardless of whether its winning or killer beer for the fam. Or maybe, I cant or you dont want me to, and thats cool. I wrote this for someone who perhaps is pleased with this information and wants to run with it.

Man I hear you and I'm really taking that to heart.. So to sum up... I need to get better at every general aspect of brewing to make better beer?... I need to become.. Masterful? Totally get it now

 

[TheMadKing]

An aside... 833 is ayingers bottling strain. It’s used because of its super poor flocc. A much better strain is 2206 or 835. Both flocc really well. 835 is a tad less sulfury. 835 is hard to get for homebrewers though. None though are gonna get you where you need to go I don’t think however. There isn’t too much magical about yeast.

I just used 2206 and it worked well, but 833 does seem to preserve a more rounded malt flavor, and I haven't had any issues with getting it to floc or with sulfur. It also has worked well with an accelerated temperature ramping schedule rising from 50 up to 68 over just a few days at the end of fermentation before cold crashing and kegging. Very clean too

 

[Big Monk]

There is a certain LODO enthusiast who brews only Belgian-style beers...

 

[applescrap]

Man I hear you and I'm really taking that to heart.. So to sum up... I need to get better at every general aspect of brewing to make better beer?... I need to become.. Masterful? Totally get it now

I really dont want to drag anything out, but I want to answer your questions. No, you dont need to get better at every aspect. Nor would i tell you that, especially not knowing how you brew. Also, sounds like you have already reched those levels. I am better at some aspects then others. Some of the aforementioned skills I need to give more attention to then others. You dont need to become anything you dont want. You are great just who you are and ultimately you decide what dreams and accomplishments you want. I dont think one becomes masterful as much as they attain it or by dumb luck and enough effort find it.

 

[Big Monk]

So I'm a huge German beer fan...

...I'm not talking about the difference between bad beer and good beer here, I'm talking about the difference between good beer and masterful beer.

The first step to improving in any hobby is being honest with yourself about where you are and what you want.

I think you've done that above.

I won't bring up the methods which shall not be named but I think there is plenty of information in this thread to get you going once you filter out the noise.

 

[jam095]

I already brew fantastic beer and I'm not in the habit of accepting a methodology that is not fully understood by anyone at face value without fiddling with it.

I'm in no rush and I'll be making beer for years anyway, so while I probably won't adopt a full six sigma DOE process control regime, I can eliminate a number of those permutations with some educated guessing.

I respect the fact that you make great beer, but if your LoDo beers have ever won a silver medal and a non-lodo beer won a gold, that's enough to cause me to doubt.

I despise the very notion that anyone should stop questioning and accept claims at face value. That arrogant and authoritative ideology is precisely what turned me off to it in the first place.

Whether it's true or not, I would take my inferior beer and free thought over perfect beer and blind faith any day.

Amen!!

 

[Mer-man]

Try viking no lox malts if you intend to bottle and age.

Dude are you buying that marketing nonsense? LOX varieties are unnecessary if you malt properly (see Joe Hertrich for details). Plus breeding out LOX will inevitably affect other qualities . .
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/...sner-and-pale-ale-and-viking-pale-ale.639319/

Just buy the Weyermann if you want to make German beer.

 

[Jayjay1976]

I respect the fact that you make great beer, but if your LoDo beers have ever won a silver medal and a non-lodo beer won a gold, that's enough to cause me to doubt.

I despise the very notion that anyone should stop questioning and accept claims at face value. That arrogant and authoritative ideology is precisely what turned me off to it in the first place.

You touched my my two raw nerves here regarding LODO.

The idea that bjcp judges are uniformly trained to either prefer the shortcomings of non-LODO brews, or are in some other way brainwashed to judge against it is absolute absurdity. Then to prop up that nonsense by claiming that although LODO produces far better beer, it doesn't lend itself to packaging and therefore doesn't fare well at competition seems like a cop out.

Furthermore the demand that you accept the science despite any negative experience you might have had with it is frustrating to new initiates. Like, if your lodo beers don't deliver that elusive "it" factor, you must have done something wrong. Who would spend money or effort on such unproven science?

 

[Die_Beerery]

@Jayjay1976 -Nothing but golds and BOS's here, but thats besides the point. I want to touch on this.

"Who would spend money or effort on such unproven science?"

It's a very poor argument, and carries zero weight. It also shows you have not even in the least explored the methods. In this thread alone I have linked our resource page a few times. This page list's 7 professional textbooks, and nearly 100 scientific papers about it. I probably have double that that are not on the page yet. This page has been up over 2 years. When folks are given the materials and chose not to look or explore any other options that would show a very strong confirmation bias. That is your fault not mine. I provided the pertinent info, you chose not to explore it. That is no way my problem, and using that argument dismisses any credibility.

Look, I brewed "non-lodo" for about 14 years, and brewed over 1000 batches of beer. I competed and did well, etc etc. I did an honest self assessment and realized my german and hoppy style beers could be better, so I explored alternatives. I know exactly what beers on both sides of the coin taste like, I was a BJCP judge, I have been tested and I am a super taster as well. I get it. You are beating a dead horse.

I could care less how people brew, however lets flip the script and discuss a myriad of posts here and online that it is acceptable to "tell people they did it wrong"

yeast starters
pitch counts
fermentation temp control (really lack there of)
step mashing
pH control (or lack there of)
yeast selection per beer style

Looks around on these forums and you will see posts non stop with people doing things wrong, and people telling them how to do it right.

Lets take for instance a person, they tried to make a Belgian golden strong The recipe looked like this...

tap water
dry hefeweizen yeast
american malts
simcoe for hops
they did a step mash, but mashed at 100, then 180.
Their gravity was low and fermented this beer at closet temps of 85

Now lets take this extreme case and say they came in to this forum and said BGS is an awful beer style, they would no doubt be lit up here.

Lets take one and only one of those variables, say pH of the mash. Lets say someone doesn't measure. Lets say they are using hard water and pale malts. Undoubtedly pH would be extremely out of whack. Lets then say they came into the forum and said I brewed a pils, and it tastes astringent and phenolic. They then make the assessment Pils beer sucks. The problem is pH control and water control is very much needed in a pilsner. Someone here will catch that and tell them they need to fix those problems.

Now lets take our process which is inherently more difficult than "Standard" brewing. Something akin to going from extract to all grain, but without the knowledge of water, ph, fermentation control, etc. We literally see that everyday here. Lets say said person only uses that first time to make a total assessment if extract is better or worse than all grain. Overall I bet more people than not didn't have a perfect first all grain session.. I know I sure didn't. If I only had one time to assess, I would probably still be using it. It was clumsy, hard, and the product wasn't much better. Now my 10th all grain, things went much smoother, and by my 100th it was like riding a bike. The take away here is that this is a completely new process for most. It's difficult, you will be clumsy, you will do things wrong.. Its part of the game.

People seem to only be hypersensitive to constructive criticism to low oxygen.. Why? I have no idea. As seen in my examples above it is literally no different. Most of our members say it took at least 5 batches to get the hang and see positive results. Yes most only half heartily try once, or try once but not fully grasp (extract to AG). It's an unfair assessment and it seems to only be with low oxygen.

The door swings both ways. We have always posted all reference material in open sight, conversely we are the only ones expected to do so. I don't see any scientific journals about why BIAB, Two vessel or 3 vessel setups, or what sparging methods are better, but everyone seems to accept any one of them blindly. It's unfair to us, but we understand why.

I want this all to sink in for a bit..

 

[Jayjay1976]

@Jayjay1976 -Nothing but golds and BOS's here, but thats besides the point.

Whoah, I rolled my eyes so hard there I nearly fell out of my macrame hammock.

@Jayjay1976 This page has been up over 2 years.

I know a certain comic book that's been around for over 2,000 years. Even though literally billions of people believe in it that doesn't make it factual.

That's the great thing about science, it doesn't require any faith.

 

[Bilsch]

Look around on these forums and you will see posts non stop with people doing things wrong, and people telling them how to do it right.

Literally the reason these forums exist.

 

[Big Monk]

That's the great thing about science, it doesn't require any faith.

Honest question: Are you of the opinion that nothing we are on about, nor any of our references, nor any of the experiences of the dozens and dozens of super nice, super sharp homebrewers who have tried it out and had success is grounded in science? At all?

If so, I respect your right to have that opinion, but I just can’t believe you think that.

 

[LuckyBeagleBrewing]

Just to chime in on this I have had some success using German malt of the Barke variety. I don't do anything with LODO but I do try to be careful about transfers and hot side aeration. That is just normal process. The malts make a huge difference from everything I can tell.

One thing I wish I could do is trap some of the aroma that is off gassed during fermentation. The last Helles I did has a wonderful smell of strong pretzel when I opened the fermentation chamber. If I could pressure ferment, I think some of that would have remained in the beer. It was a really good Helles and very flavorful. All german malt and noble hops with a munich water profile.

The one thing I did that would have been considered a no no for lodo is a mashout decoction. I have started using that process on all German beers. That coupled with the Barke malt really made a difference. I read somewhere where the Barke and Steffi varieties of barley are key to German beer.

 

[TheMadKing]

Honest question: Are you of the opinion that nothing we are on about, nor any of our references, nor any of the experiences of the dozens and dozens of super nice, super sharp homebrewers who have tried it out and had success is grounded in science? At all?

If so, I respect your right to have that opinion, but I just can’t believe you think that.

100% no I don't believe that. I have zero doubt that the Lodo process as developed can produce better beer in some cases.

Things I don't believe at face value:

"Every step of the Lodo process is essential to improving the finished beer for the sole reason that it eliminates oxygen".

There are simply too many variables being changed simultaneously for that claim to hold up. The premise is sound, the science is sound, but the law of unintended consequences says that something more is going on than is currently understood.

And in the same vein "there is a maximum threshold for dissolved oxygen, and if you cross that line there is no benefit to the process". Everything is on a spectrum. Everything. Even black and white.

There simply isn't enough understood about WHY Lodo works to start manipulating it and calling it a process. The organic chemistry of hops alone is not fully understood, Kunze readily admits that (yes I own it, yes I've read it, and no I don't agree with all of the conclusions Lodo draws from it). There is a lot going on in beer, and I would expect that there are a number of processes in play here that are not well understood.

If things are better understood, then maybe energy can be focused better and less steps required to accomplish the same result. That's my only argument with it: that I'm being asked to follow a process that seems to believe that it is the be-all end-all without wondering if my effort might be better spent focusing on a few key areas.

 

[Big Monk]

100% no I don't believe that. I have zero doubt that the Lodo process as developed can produce better beer in some cases.

Things I don't believe at face value:

"Every step of the Lodo process is essential to improving the finished beer for the sole reason that it eliminates oxygen".

There are simply too many variables being changed simultaneously for that claim to hold up. The premise is sound, the science is sound, but the law of unintended consequences says that something more is going on than is currently understood.

And in the same vein "there is a maximum threshold for dissolved oxygen, and if you cross that line there is no benefit to the process". Everything is on a spectrum. Everything. Even black and white.

There simply isn't enough understood about WHY Lodo works to start manipulating it and calling it a process. The organic chemistry of hops alone is not fully understood, Kunze readily admits that (yes I own it, yes I've read it, and no I don't agree with all of the conclusions Lodo draws from it). There is a lot going on in beer, and I would expect that there are a number of processes in play here that are not well understood.

If things are better understood, then maybe energy can be focused better and less steps required to accomplish the same result. That's my only argument with it: that I'm being asked to follow a process that seems to believe that it is the be-all end-all without wondering if my effort might be better spent focusing on a few key areas.

This is simply not true. We have been advocating a step wise approach to new brewers trying it for almost 2 years. I’m still shocked people bring up the 2 points you mentioned.

Like Bryan said, it takes a handful of brews to get it down. No one will knock it out of the park the first time. Add a few methods. Get used to them. Keep going toward a goals until it’s second nature.

This is what we’ve advocated for a while now. The worst that could happen is maybe a little extra time on brewday and brewing the exact beer you do now until you get the full hang of it.

 

[SanPancho]

Dude are you buying that marketing nonsense? LOX varieties are unnecessary if you malt properly (see Joe Hertrich for details). Plus breeding out LOX will inevitably affect other qualities . .
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/...sner-and-pale-ale-and-viking-pale-ale.639319/

Just buy the Weyermann if you want to make German beer.

So your educated opinion is that if you “malt properly” then you magically get no staling or other off flavors in a beer? No relation whatsoever to brewing process, packaging, aging, etc. Why dont you take that gem to the lodo boys and get a reaction?

And last i checked theres been plenty of gene splicing, slicing and dicing going on all over the globe and we’ve still got plenty of good flavor going around.

Weyerman is overrated.

 

[Big Monk]

So your educated opinion is that if you “malt properly” then you magically get no staling or other off flavors in a beer? No relation whatsoever to brewing process, packaging, aging, etc. Why don't you take that gem to the lodo boys and get a reaction?

Without putting too many words in @Mer-man 's mouth, I think what he was getting at was that all malt has LOX present (except of course these LOX-less varieties) but essentially malted out of effectiveness (effectiveness being its ability to cause downstream stability and flavor issues due to oxidation) in malts with higher kilning than say, Pilsner malt or Pale Ale malt.

For us excluding oxygen, we have no need for LOX-less varieties because we don't crush to flour and the LOX present in the malt we use won't have any oxygen to react with, or at least such low levels in the mash and beyond that it's not a worry for us.

For those using normal processes, LOX-less malts, especially lower kilned versions, may be of use to you, provided that the grain flavor itself is good. From what I've heard, those LOX-less malts are a bit anemic and I don't believe it has anything to do with the LOX-less part, but simply because the products from that maltster are that way anyway.

So short story long: If you use normal process, lower kilned malts in a recipe, and you think the malt tastes good on it's own, there really isn't any reason NOT to use it.

And last I checked there's been plenty of gene splicing, slicing and dicing going on all over the globe and we’ve still got plenty of good flavor going around.

Very true and many times very beneficial to people all around the globe.

Weyermann is overrated.

Of course I have to respectfully disagree here!

Weyermann products are everything they are touted to be and then some, IMHO. Take that for what it's worth, i.e. that and $0.75 will get you a Snickers bar.

 

[Invertalon]

View attachment 600535

My Lodo ESB turned out... Totally normal... No obvious differences between final wort vs any other brew day, should be a good bitter

I'll try it again next time when I brew a pilsner in a couple weeks.. Maybe it only works on German styles?

I have done probably over a dozen low oxygen batches at this point, if not more. From lager to imperial stouts and IPA's. Honestly, the wort has -zero- difference in aroma/flavor to me. I have tried hard to distinguish any of these new flavors or whatever people claim, but yeah, no. Tastes like the same old, delicious wort.

My low oxygen stuff included the pre-boiling, SMB dosing, mash caps, underletting, etc... Finished beers have been great, but are they any better than they would be otherwise? No idea. Perhaps my technique was just very solid before hand or something, so diminishing returns perhaps, but I am very close to throwing in the towel on all the “extra” stuff such as the pre-boil, SMB dosing, etc… I do like the spunding for some stuff, but not all. Just depends on each individual beer.

Not to say it’s not making things better, I just don’t notice it. My last IPA I even did “old school” method, avoiding the pre-boil and SMB stuff on the brewing side, allowing it to hit FG in the fermenter (no spund) and cold crashing/keg/burst carb. Did it to compare to my last few that were low oxygen brewed. Just tapped that beer and it’s one of the brightest IPA’s I’ve brewed in a while. So who knows. We will see how it does long-term though, but in the past, my IPA’s held up just find two or three months before that keg kicked just fine.

To each their own of course. I have been doing the low oxygen stuff for over a year now and still not buying into the low oxygen stuff making a noticeable difference in the end product of my beers, at least.

 

[EnglishAndy]

That information is located here, on my websites resources page (http://www.lowoxygenbrewing.com/uncategorized/list-of-brewing-references/).

I read your Methods of the Low Oxygen Brewhouse article with interest and would like to integrate some of the techniques into my next brew, particularly the use of Na-meta in the brewing water. You link out from the article to some spreadsheets that you've created but unfortunately I get a 404 not found when clicking the links. Any chance you could bring those back?

 

[Big Monk]

I read your Methods of the Low Oxygen Brewhouse article with interest and would like to integrate some of the techniques into my next brew, particularly the use of Na-meta in the brewing water. You link out from the article to some spreadsheets that you've created but unfortunately I get a 404 not found when clicking the links. Any chance you could bring those back?

I had some of the files I was hosting on our site become corrupted and I did not have master copies anymore. I let it "die on the vine" as it was a ton of work to integrate peoples requests, etc.

There are 3 calculations specific to Low Oxygen that are the most important, IMHO:

1.) Color Reduction - Color can be anywhere from 65-100% of the SRM predicted by the Morey equation. We have found that 75% is a sweet spot for most users. Take your predicted SRM value and multiply by 0.75 to get an estimate of the color value for Low Oxygen wort.

2.) Metabisulfite (g) - The value, in grams, of metabilsulfite to add to the brewing water is:

Metabisulfite (g) = ( ( PPM Desired (mg/l) * Volume (l) ) / 1000 ) / Medium Factor

where Medium Factor varies depending on the medium being used, i.e. Powdered Form = 1, Campden Tablets = 0.75 (generally unless otherwise stated), and Antioxin SBT = 0.45. This equation can be used for volumes of Strike and Sparge water.

3.) Water Profile and pH Reduction - Adding Sodium or Potassium Metabisulfite will add specific amounts of Sodium, Potassium, and Sulfate to the brewing water:

Sodium (ppm) = ( PPM Metabisulfite / 100 ) * 24

Potassium (ppm) = ( PPM Metabisulfite / 100 ) * 35

Sulfate (ppm) (For NaMeta) = ( PPM Metabisulfite / 100 ) * 101

Sulfate (ppm) (For KMeta) = ( PPM Metabisulfite / 100 ) * 86

Also, there is an empirical -0.1 pH drop per 100 ppm, so:

pH Drop = - ( PPM Metabisulfite / 100 ) * 0.1

 

[EnglishAndy]

I had some of the files I was hosting on our site become corrupted and I did not have master copies anymore. I let it "die on the vine" as it was a ton of work to integrate peoples requests, etc.

There are 3 calculations specific to Low Oxygen that are the most important, IMHO:

1.) Color Reduction - Color can be anywhere from 65-100% of the SRM predicted by the Morey equation. We have found that 75% is a sweet spot for most users. Take your predicted SRM value and multiply by 0.75 to get an estimate of the color value for Low Oxygen wort.

2.) Metabisulfite (g) - The value, in grams, of metabilsulfite to add to the brewing water is:

Metabisulfite (g) = ( ( PPM Desired (mg/l) * Volume (l) ) / 1000 ) / Medium Factor

where Medium Factor varies depending on the medium being used, i.e. Powdered Form = 1, Campden Tablets = 0.75 (generally unless otherwise stated), and Antioxin SBT = 0.45. This equation can be used for volumes of Strike and Sparge water.

3.) Water Profile and pH Reduction - Adding Sodium or Potassium Metabisulfite will add specific amounts of Sodium, Potassium, and Sulfate to the brewing water:

Sodium (ppm) = ( PPM Metabisulfite / 100 ) * 24

Potassium (ppm) = ( PPM Metabisulfite / 100 ) * 35

Sulfate (ppm) (For NaMeta) = ( PPM Metabisulfite / 100 ) * 101

Sulfate (ppm) (For KMeta) = ( PPM Metabisulfite / 100 ) * 86

Also, there is an empirical -0.1 pH drop per 100 ppm, so:

pH Drop = - ( PPM Metabisulfite / 100 ) * 0.1

You must be a mind reader because that's EXACTLY what I was looking for. Thanks a million!

 

[Big Monk]

You must be a mind reader because that's EXACTLY what I was looking for. Thanks a million!

No problem! That's what we are ACTUALLY here for!

 

[applescrap]

The brulosophy test showed that there was a difference. That said people preferred the normal brew substantially. Assuming this method takes time to master, take this with a grain of salt. Furthermore, that beautiful light color in their experiment was a from a lack of gravity due to limited stirring etc. When making the lodo the same gravity it was darker and dare I say the correct color. I believe there are merits to this method and from the get go remained open and curious. As opposed to fermentation temp control, ph, and a myriad of other factors that I remain skeptic about. I look forward to down the road when we know exactly what matters and when. Btw i have made idk 20 or 30 g of palmer and zainsheffs marzen and its good. I personally like bock but prefer bitter ales and lagers.

 

[SanPancho]

Of course I have to respectfully disagree here!

Weyermann products are everything they are touted to be and then some, IMHO. Take that for what it's worth, i.e. that and $0.75 will get you a Snickers bar.

I don’t dispute that they are high quality. I simply say they’re overrated.

Have been in a few breweries that switched to or from Weyermann and never noticed a difference

Now- that was straight from the tank, so can’t speak to longevity or staling, and none were known for malty/german styles either. So there.

 

[Big Monk]

I don’t dispute that they are high quality. I simply say they’re overrated.

Have been in a few breweries that switched to or from Weyermann and never noticed a difference

Now- that was straight from the tank, so can’t speak to longevity or staling, and none were known for malty/german styles either. So there.

All I really brew are Trappist ales with 3787, 1214, or 1762. I only use Weyermann. For it's not necessarily a German thing but the fact that i like thier malts over other maltsters.