First Experience in LoDO BIAB

[PlinyTheMiddleAged]

Warning! Long post follows!

If you haven't seen the LoDO (Low Dissolved Oxygen) thread over in the Brewing Science forum, it is an entertaining read full of some interesting ideas and a bit of drama. Basically, the folks that started that thread advocate the use of practices that limit oxidation of the wort during the mash and boil steps and on through kegging. They are mainly doing so to get a malt flavor in their German-centric beers that is missing in more "traditional" home brewed beers. I brew mainly IPAs, but I thought I'd give the process a try to see if it improves my beers.

I brewed a beer similar to the Focal Banger clone recipe from a recent BYO article on NE IPAs. I use distilled water and Bru'n Water to help set my mineral content and pH. I shoot for a pH of 5.4 for my IPAs and I've settled on about 75:150 sulfate to chloride for NE IPAs. I usually get 75% kettle efficiency pretty easily.

That's the general background. Below I'll describe what I did in an attempt to implement a LoDO process. I will say up front that none of this was difficult, and I did see differences in the wort going in to the fermenter.

Step 1) Pre-boiled the strike water; added salts from Bru'n Water, and added sodium metabisulfite (NaMBS). NaMBS is the magic ingredient that limits oxidation. Pre-boiling reduces the amount of dissolved oxygen in the strike water. I added 50 ppm NaMBS based on strike water volume.

Step 2) I conditioned the grain and milled it directly into my bag. I ran a hose to the bottom of the grain bucket which was holding the bag and trickled in CO2 in an attempt to minimize oxidation of the cracked grains. I'm not sure how much this helped, but it was talked about in the main LoDO thread so I gave it a try.

Step 3) I chilled the strike water down from boiling to strike temp (using a stainless steel IC - copper is frowned upon by the LoDO folks) and mashed in. Mashing in was basically slowly lowering the bag of milled grains into the strike water so dough balls wouldn't form. I then added a mash cap - I just floated a large piece of tin foil on top of the mash. I slapped a lid on the kettle, and wrapped it in sleeping bags for an hour.

Step 4) Pulled the bag and minimized splashing/dripping back into the kettle - I let the bottom inch or so touch the top of the wort while the bag drained. Then brought the wort to a gentle boil for an hour.

Step 5) Cooled using a stainless steel IC.

My observations:
The LoDO wort was definitely different than usual - there was almost no smell at all. There was a very faint musty smell - probably from sulfur compounds.

The wort was very pale and clear. I'm used to having really cloudy wort in the samples I pull for pH checks. The sample I pulled was like tinted glass.

And speaking of pH, Bru'n Water always serves me well getting me pretty close to my desired target. With the addition of NaMBS, I hit 5.25 (shooting for 5.4). I've never been that far off before, so maybe this is caused by NaMBS?

Hot break was different - very "fluffy", like snow. Maybe since the wort was more clear, I could see it better during the boil and that's why I thought it looked different. Maybe it was different.

Hops smelled different - I think this might be because there was almost no grain smell, but the hops really smelled bright and fresh.

Finally, the wort going into the conical looked pretty clear and light - not sure it was more clear than "normal" wort. However, efficiency took a hit. I ended up at around 65% when I usually see close to 75%. Perhaps this was from the lower pH? Maybe not. It's hard to tell from a sample of one.

All in all, the LoDO process was fairly simple - pre-boil the strike water, dose with 50 ppm NaMBS, add a mash cap, and boil gently. I'm not sure I'd go to the trouble of milling in a CO2 flushed bucket again (although it was easy). The only thing I had to buy was the NaMBS.

It's busy doing its thing in the conical - I'll report back as it progresses.

PlinyTheMiddleAged

 

[pricelessbrewing]

@RPIScotty has a new mash chem spreadsheet that's supposed to be better for LODO and the use of sulfites. Haven't tested it myself yet.

I'm not sure I buy into this LODO thing just yet, but I'll likely try it out at some point.

 

[schematix]

I've been doing LoDO exclusively for about a year now. I've done mostly German lagers, but I've also squeezed in an IPA and an Oat Stout using the same process.

There is definitely something different about all of the beers. I will refrain from saying 'better' or 'proper' because it seems to elicit a lot of troll behavior around here. But, the beers are unquestionably different in several ways, which to me comes across in a very positive way.

Make sure to follow through the process with good low O2 dry hopping techniques, and natural carbonation in the serving keg. Keeping oxygen out is all about eliminating weak links in your process. I've made a lot of IPAs before, but nothing near as good as I've made with this process.

Sounds like you took the gist of the process and adjusted it to your system. As you've seen, it's actually not that much more difficult than a traditional home brew day. Now sit back, relax, and listen to a bunch of people say how LoDO is too much work, and it doesn't do anything anyways...

 

[Weezy]

Thanks for posting up your thoughts.

My biggest qualms are that the announcement PDF is written very authoritatively with very little grounding is science or backed up with tested evidence. It's practically disingenuous, portrayed as if was written by some governing body and based on the work of the German professional brewing community.


That being said, I have zero doubts that it tastes different. Heck, just adding a ton of campden tablets is going to make it taste different. Assuming that hot side oxidation is impacting more traditionally brewed beer, and If it is, it isn't crossing over into the cardboard and soy sauce off taste realm.... Which is the truly worrisome oxidation levels.

Until the author's come back with triple blind taste tests of beers that were monitored by dissolved oxygen meters at all stages of the brewing process, I'd certainly appreciate the authoritative tone be kept to a minimum. Until then, my meager experience is perfectly in line with what Mr. Bamforth said; that HSA isn't worth worrying about.

 

[schematix]

Until the author's come back with triple blind taste tests of beers that were monitored by dissolved oxygen meters at all stages of the brewing process, I'd certainly appreciate the authoritative tone be kept to a minimum.

Agree somewhat on the tone. Presentation and delivery could have been better.

I can tell you from first hand experience the difference is so obvious you don't need a triangle test to validate it. The color is different, the aroma is different, and the flavor is different. And it's not just the campden.

http://www.********************/brewing-methods/the-infamous-low-oxygen-sensory-analysis/

 

[PlinyTheMiddleAged]

Priceless,

Yes - I've seen the thread on RPIScotty's spreadsheet. Thought about trying it out. But I didn't want to change out from Bru'n Water. Maybe tonight I'll track down Scotty's worksheet and plug my water and grain bill in to see what it says relative to Bru'n Water. I really like Martin's spreadsheet - very well laid out. Maybe @mabrungard can add NaMBS as a salt addition in his spreadsheet along with the associated chemistry?

schematix,

I think my cold side is fairly solid. This beer will be dry hopped while fermentation is still active. And I usually flow CO2 into the headspace of the conical while tossing in the pellets as added insurance against O2 exposure.

Transfer from conical to keg is a CO2 push into a purged keg - keg is filled until I get ALL space filled (no bubbles) with StarSan made with pre-boiled water and then pushed out with CO2.

The change I'll make this time is to add a bit of priming sugar to the keg so the yeast can scavenge the residual O2.

It was a LOT more simple than what I expected. As to the effect on the final product, I'm looking forward to that.

Unfortunately, I was too busy to take pictures. But now that I know what I'm doing (at least I think I know), it should be easier and I'll have time for pics next time I try LoDO.

If this further improves my already good IPAs, then a DO meter is on the horizon.

PlinyTheMiddleAged

 

[Weezy]

The first tests i'd like to see are:

1. Normal brewing vs. normal brewing with campden, to see the effects of just campden on brew process.
2. LODO vs. Normal brewing, without using any campden tablets in either, to see the level of impact of everything but campden.

Use a very simple beer. 100% pale malt and 20 ibus max of something simple.

 

[PlinyTheMiddleAged]

Thanks for posting up your thoughts.

My biggest qualms are that the announcement PDF is written very authoritatively with very little grounding is science or backed up with tested evidence. It's practically disingenuous, portrayed as if was written by some governing body and based on the work of the German professional brewing community.


That being said, I have zero doubts that it tastes different. Heck, just adding a ton of campden tablets is going to make it taste different. Assuming that hot side oxidation is impacting more traditionally brewed beer, and If it is, it isn't crossing over into the cardboard and soy sauce off taste realm.... Which is the truly worrisome oxidation levels.

Until the author's come back with triple blind taste tests of beers that were monitored by dissolved oxygen meters at all stages of the brewing process, I'd certainly appreciate the authoritative tone be kept to a minimum. Until then, my meager experience is perfectly in line with what Mr. Bamforth said; that HSA isn't worth worrying about.

Weezy,

I hear you. I have the exact same concerns with that original PDF and the early tone of that thread. That whole thing about "IT" drove me nuts. However, once other (calmer) individuals (like @TexasWine) joined in and spoke highly of the results, I thought I'd give it a try. And the outcome will be beer - hopefully better beer. Plus, all that it cost me was the price of the NaMBS and a little more time to pre-boil the strike water. Ok and the cost of the propane to boil that water.

But, yes. That was a heck of a write up.

If it comes out good, I'll let everyone know. If it sucks, I'll let everyone know that too - and the LoDO crew will tell me how I did it wrong.

Regards,
PlinyTheMiddleAged

 

[schematix]

The first tests i'd like to see are:

1. Normal brewing vs. normal brewing with campden, to see the effects of just campden on brew process.
2. LODO vs. Normal brewing, without using any campden tablets in either, to see the level of impact of everything but campden.

Use a very simple beer. 100% pale malt and 20 ibus max of something simple.

1. In my early brewing days i used campden (it was K-MBS not Na-MBS though) to treat for chloramine, without any pre-boiling. I would say it had no impact on flavor and didn't impart any LoDO characteristics i experience now.

2. There are a handful of posts in the main LoDO thread where the authors stated they tried just boiled mash water, and just NaMBS treated water, but neither was sufficient. It wasn't until both pre-boiled water was combined with NaMBS that results were seen.

Weezy - why don't you get involved and do the tests you're asking about?

 

[schematix]

The change I'll make this time is to add a bit of priming sugar to the keg so the yeast can scavenge the residual O2.

Sounds like your process is headed in the right direction.

One thing you may want to consider is an idea that was brought forth by one of the LoDO brains in the main LoDO thread. The idea was to add the priming sugar to the primary, wait a few hours, then rack to the keg. That will give the yeast time to wake-up and become active as you are racking.

 

[Yeastieboy]

I am also using an eBIAB system and have been dabbling with incorporating LODO processes. I have created three beers using these concepts with good results. I also noted a very malty smelling, clearer wort and a very white cloudy break that took forever to fall (for whatever that's worth). Most importantly, all three brews tasted great to me and for whatever reason, better than previous versions of the same brews. I am about to implement these processes on Friday (01/27) for my House Pilsener which I've brewed many times. I will also be naturally carbonating this beer in the keg for the first time ever. These results will be the deciding factor for whether I continue these practices. For me, I've settled on:

1) Pretreating (6-8 hours) my water with dextrose and yeast rather than boiling to drive off oxygen
2) NaMBS 5 minutes before mashing in
3) Grinding right before mash in and underletting from a separate vessel (this time I may simply lower the bag in)
4) Covered mash as usual and gentle recirculation (I don't get too hung up on a bubble or two as the pump starts)
5) SS immersion chiller to avoid pumping and copper

I was also slightly annoyed by the authoritative tone of the PDF but besides that, I enjoyed the read and takeaways. I also don't like that fact that they are so OCD about any tiny little infraction that introduces O2, stating that it basically ruins all your efforts. I have definitely seen what I would quantify as an improvement and my process is certainly not perfect.

Cheers.

 

[Weezy]

1. In my early brewing days i used campden (it was K-MBS not Na-MBS though) to treat for chloramine, without any pre-boiling. I would say it had no impact on flavor and didn't impart any LoDO characteristics i experience now.

2. There are a handful of posts in the main LoDO thread where the authors stated they tried just boiled mash water, and just NaMBS treated water, but neither was sufficient. It wasn't until both pre-boiled water was combined with NaMBS that results were seen.

Weezy - why don't you get involved and do the tests you're asking about?

I use campden too but not at the concentrations they're taking about. #2: doesn't make much sense. 1+1≠3. But I'm definitely not interested or planning to argue anything

Buy me a DO meter and a stainless cooling coil and I'd be glad to do it I can scare up bjcp judges too.

 

[schematix]

1+1≠3.

syn·er·gy

noun
the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects.

 

[PlinyTheMiddleAged]

Buy me a DO meter and a stainless cooling coil and I'd be glad to do it I can scare up bjcp judges too.

Weezy is right. Everyone says just go try this - it's easy. But it may not be cheap for everyone to try this on a 5 gallon batch. The stainless steel chiller is the tough one - I happened to already own one so this was indeed easy for me to just try.

But then the LoDO crowd says - just do the test mash to see the difference. But that's not beer. That's wort. I wanted to see how this affects my IPAs and tasting an IPA wort doesn't really tell me how my IPA beer will taste.

So, I was lucky - I had some of the expensive pieces (no DO meter though). Therefore, easy for me to try. But it's not easy for anyone to try (from a $ perspective).

 

[TexasWine]

#2: doesn't make much sense. 1+1≠3.

2. There are a handful of posts in the main LoDO thread where the authors stated they tried just boiled mash water, and just NaMBS treated water, but neither was sufficient. It wasn't until both pre-boiled water was combined with NaMBS that results were seen.

#2 makes a lot of sense when you consider equilibrium and any shifts away from it. Boiling gets rid of the oxygen in solution very quickly. As soon as you stop boiling, oxygen from the atmosphere will immediately start dissolving again into the water because the equilibrium has been upset. But the rate at which it goes back into solution is much slower than the rate at which boiling drove it out. The sulfite is there to scavenge that oxygen which goes back into solution in the water.

Boiling can get rid of large amounts of oxygen, but you can't keep it at bay because you have to stop boiling at some point. Sulfites can't scavenge it all without getting into high concentrations that would be bad for the resultant beer, but in small doses it can be tolerated.

Combine the two and you get 1+1=3

 

[Weezy]

You have two factors doing the same thing and your dealing with a generally finite amount of oxygen. Both are removing it from solution. The processes are not synergistic. Boiling doesn't make campden scavenge more and campden isn't making boiling evacuate more. *That's* synergy. There should be some noticeable effect from each. So campden alone isn't enough? So what is the scavenging rate of campden? How is dosage rate determined? Can't we just add more? Doesn't campden alone impact flavor? How much does campden impact flavor?

Oxygen from atmosphere goes back into solution? How fast? At want point/concentration does it matter? Where's the test data showing DO at least and, hopefully, flavor impact as well?

The generalizations are tiring.

But, actually, if separately they're imperceivable, this suggests to me that you should be able to evaluate what level of treatment, i.e. what DO level, is necessary to obtain the desired flavor change.

One of my calc professors had a great analogy about precision. Imagine you enter the doorway to your girlfriend's home. She's standing across the room. She opens her arms to you. As you move across the room to her, you take steps that are always half the distance to her. Doing this, you'll never actually reach her. But you'll quickly reach a point where close enough is good enough.

Do a series of tests to show how much DO causes really bad off flavors, like cardboard and soy, and work backwards from there.


I wonder if you can even get enough DO hot side to cause bad off flavors?



Sorry to derail thread, Pliny!

 

[schematix]

Sorry to derail thread, Pliny!

A lot of this has been discussed in the main LoDO thread already. Some people no matter what though, still argue about whether HSA is real or not. If you are a naysayer i'd say just stop now. LoDO isn't for you.

But if you want a constructive discussion then I would post this there and leave this thread about the experience relative to BIAB.

Even if you argue about WHY it makes a difference, I guarantee if you execute the process as described you will find the beer to be better. There is a reason why all large breweries go to great effort to exclude oxygen in all facets of the process from brewing, to packaging, to the shelf. This isn't something these guys made up. Their contribution is the pre-boil+NaMBS process.

 

[Weezy]

The point of oxidation is that it can make seriously bad beer. Traditional brewing methods aren't making bad beer. LODO, apparently, makes *different* beer. HSA, real or not, has never been shown to be the cause of serious off flavors, as far as I've seen. Oxygen has been shown to be a serious contributor to off flavors on the cold side, when the constituents in the wort are very, very, very different than hot side. Again, LODO isn't disproving the idea that HSA isn't worth worrying about. But if it's making beer that you feel is superior and the process works for you, great. The point is there is nothing that's been shown to justify the evangelizating of this.

There's no point to going over there. It's he said, she said until some real quantitative testing is done.

 

[TexasWine]

The point of oxidation is that it can make seriously bad beer.

Why can't oxidation simply make sub optimal beer instead of bad beet?

Here's the thing. I don't think anyone, in this thread at least, is saying other folk's beer is bad. I made plenty of fine tasting beers before low DO, and I know others have as well. I think the overall driver for this conversion is that you've got one set of homebrewers that genuinely want other homebrewers to make the best beer they've ever had. It just so happens that the optimization revolves around something that homebrewers have some doubts about. That's why this is contentious.

So with that, I'll shut my trap and let us get back to the regularly scheduled programming of low DO BIAB methods and observations.

 

[schematix]

The point of oxidation is that it can make seriously bad beer. Traditional brewing methods aren't making bad beer.

You are grossly misrepresentating what the point is here. No one said a little HSA is going to 'make seriously bad beer'.

It's he said, she said until some real quantitative testing is done.

Again another gross misrepresentation. Why do you think they bought expensive DO meters and measured in every step of the process? There was 'real quantitative' testing done. Further, professional brewing literature has spoken repeatedly on the subject. They didn't invent HSA or CSA, they just presented a process for dealing with it on a home brew level. The big breweries go to great lengths to avoid oxygen and its for well understood and well documented reasons. But they also deal with it differently because the scale in which they brew inherently avoids oxygen exposure with few additional measures.

You obviously haven't done your research on the subject. If you're going to write it off without even reading what they've done then you are in fact spreading lies (or alternative facts, as they're called now).

 

[Weezy]

Got any links? I'd love to review the hard numbers. The drummer of a German band saying it tastes just like the Octoberfest from back home isn't very convincing evidence. I don't see references in the PDF or their website. The thread here looks more like people that can't see the forest for the trees anymore, with pages on the o2 permeation rates of beer lines.

And if you want to get personal, I can too. What engineering school did you go to that you don't understand the definition of synergy? The push back is more about the attitude than the reality.

 

[dyqik]

Finally, the wort going into the conical looked pretty clear and light - not sure it was more clear than "normal" wort. However, efficiency took a hit. I ended up at around 65% when I usually see close to 75%. Perhaps this was from the lower pH? Maybe not. It's hard to tell from a sample of one.

I'm going to suggest that both the low efficiency and the lower pH could be due to the lack of stirring of the mash to fully wet the grain. As could a number of other differences in the wort (low extraction of material from the grain could mean less protein in suspension, and hence less haze, for example).

I don't think that a mash pH of 5.25 will affect efficiency much at all. Certainly not that much. It's still within the usual recommended range.

 

[PlinyTheMiddleAged]

I'm going to suggest that both the low efficiency and the lower pH could be due to the lack of stirring of the mash to fully wet the grain. As could a number of other differences in the wort (low extraction of material from the grain could mean less protein in suspension, and hence less haze, for example).



I don't think that a mash pH of 5.25 will affect efficiency much at all. Certainly not that much. It's still within the usual recommended range.

dyqik,

I agree - I thought about the dough in difference this morning. Although I gave the mash a few gentle stirs over the 60 minutes, maybe I did have dough balls. However, there was nothing floating on top of the mash so I assume the amount of un-wetted grain was small.

But, I did stir far less than I do in my normal process.

PlinyTheMiddleAged

 

[stpug]

@Weezy
I've read a lot of posts about low oxygen brewing from folks on forums over the last year, and the most righteous posts come from folks who have not tried brewing a low oxygen beer (or taken a single, deliberate step in that direction). Interestingly enough, throughout the last year, many of those "vocal" folks - some who were so adamantly against the "LoDO" paper and the people behind it - have taken the opportunity to implement some/all of the methods outlined in the PDF document you referred to, and guess what?(Rhet.) If you have never experienced a homebrew-scale low oxygen beer then you simply cannot know the difference in flavor and aroma of said beer, and you won't until you've had the opportunity to experience one.

As for most of your questions that are aimed at poking holes in the low oxygen brewing process, they've been answered already, but you'll have to read to find out the answers. I taught my children to read so that they could pick their own interests and gather their own knowledge; not so that they could renounce any teachings they hadn't yet learned.

So, you have two choices: You can either experience the low oxygen process and results, and speak first-hand about your experience; or you can continue rejecting the low oxygen brewing process/people/PDF, having never experienced it, and speak from a purely theoretical standpoint.

...and, gestalt, is probably a better word

 

[PlinyTheMiddleAged]

I dry hopped this morning. Fermentation was slowing based on airlock activity. I did my usual practice of pulling the airlock, trickling in CO2, and adding the hop pellets through the airlock port in my conical lid. I'll probably transfer to a keg this weekend. I'll follow the advice earlier in this thread of adding the priming sugar to the conical and waiting for signs of fermentation before I rack into a CO2 purged keg.

PlinyTheMiddleAged

 

[drunkinThailand]

i am interested in trying the lodo approach, but since i bottle it has seemed like it wouldn't be worth it. could someone who bottles add the priming sugar to the primary, wait, then rack to the bottling bucket similar to what you all who keg are doing?

if so, about how long will it take? what are the signs i am looking for (bubbling?)?

 

[schematix]

i am interested in trying the lodo approach, but since i bottle it has seemed like it wouldn't be worth it. could someone who bottles add the priming sugar to the primary, wait, then rack to the bottling bucket similar to what you all who keg are doing?

if so, about how long will it take? what are the signs i am looking for (bubbling?)?

the solution to the bottling problem is to keg.

are you fermenting in a bucket still?

 

[madscientist451]

(or alternative truths, as they're called now).

I think the phrase your thinking of is Alternative Facts?

 

[schematix]

I think the phrase your thinking of is Alternative Facts?

Is it officially a proper noun now?

 

[TexasWine]

i am interested in trying the lodo approach, but since i bottle it has seemed like it wouldn't be worth it. could someone who bottles add the priming sugar to the primary, wait, then rack to the bottling bucket similar to what you all who keg are doing?

if so, about how long will it take? what are the signs i am looking for (bubbling?)?

I keg currently, but since I like to enter competitions I'm going to mostly get away from kegging and start bottling. Here's what I plan on doing.

Add priming sugar to primary, wait for signs of active fermentation, and bottle straight from the primary. I ferment in kegs and I'll just use my beer gun to fill the bottles.

You could do something similar if you're using buckets. Just bottle straight from primary with an auto siphon and some hose. By no means is this the "gold standard" method for maintaining those flavors, but it's about as good as you're gonna do. I've read the gold standard is the spunding in the keg method.

Hope this helps, and some of you other folks chime in if you have a different idea it approach.

Edit: You could try bottling with a few gravity points left, which is similar to spunding in the keg, only you're doing it in the bottle. Also, Google speise (sp?), which is where you use wort to get fermentation going again opposed to priming sugar.

 

[PlinyTheMiddleAged]

@RPIScotty has a new mash chem spreadsheet that's supposed to be better for LODO and the use of sulfites. Haven't tested it myself yet.

I finally got a chance to try out the spreadsheet that @RPIScotty put together. The predicted pH without NaMBS was slightly lower than what Bru'n Water predicted. The modest amount of NaMBS that I added (50 ppm) isn't predicted to impact pH very much - drops it by 0.05. I used DI pH values that I found in one of Kai's papers for malts similar to those that I used.

Interesting spreadsheet though - I'll be using it along with Bru'n Water in the future.

 

[PlinyTheMiddleAged]

Transferred to the serving keg today. As suggested, I put 4 points worth of sugar into my conical in the morning and waited for signs of fermentation to show. It didn't take very long for the airlock to start moving again.

I always transfer into a purged keg. I purge by filling the keg with StarSan made with pre-boiled water (to drive off O2). I fill until I can't get anymore StarSan in there. Then I pull the gas post and dip tube and continue filling. I tilt the keg to work the bubble from under the lid to the gas post and keep filling until I can't get anymore bubbles over to the gas post. After reinstalling the gas dip tube and post, I push the StarSan out with CO2 and into another keg for use at a later date.

I use a jumper to fill the keg from my conical via the liquid post. And I apply about 1.5 psi CO2 to the conical.

So, in theory, the only O2 it saw was from contamination in the bottled CO2. Hopefully, the active yeast will scrub that out.

I did notice that the beer was really light colored - a very vibrant yellow. Taste was great with a strong nose of pineapple - four ounces total of a combination of Mosaic and Citra at whirlpool with another four for dry hop (during active fermentation).

I'll probably put it on CO2 for serving next weekend. So far, so good.

I'm not saying this batch is any better than what I've done before - votes are still out on that. What I should REALLY do is what Weezy suggested - brew the same beer with different processes for a true side-by-side comparison. Only problem is that I don't generally like low IBU beers (like 20 IBUs that Weezy advocated). I'm set up for 5 gallon batches so I'd end up with 15 gallons of beer I don't like.

 

[stpug]

Transferred to the serving keg today. As suggested, I put 4 points worth of sugar into my conical in the morning and waited for signs of fermentation to show. It didn't take very long for the airlock to start moving again.

I always transfer into a purged keg. I purge by filling the keg with StarSan made with pre-boiled water (to drive off O2). I fill until I can't get anymore StarSan in there. Then I pull the gas post and dip tube and continue filling. I tilt the keg to work the bubble from under the lid to the gas post and keep filling until I can't get anymore bubbles over to the gas post. After reinstalling the gas dip tube and post, I push the StarSan out with CO2 and into another keg for use at a later date.

I use a jumper to fill the keg from my conical via the liquid post. And I apply about 1.5 psi CO2 to the conical.

So, in theory, the only O2 it saw was from contamination in the bottled CO2. Hopefully, the active yeast will scrub that out.

I did notice that the beer was really light colored - a very vibrant yellow. Taste was great with a strong nose of pineapple - four ounces total of a combination of Mosaic and Citra at whirlpool with another four for dry hop (during active fermentation).

I'll probably put it on CO2 for serving next weekend. So far, so good.

I'm not saying this batch is any better than what I've done before - votes are still out on that. What I should REALLY do is what Weezy suggested - brew the same beer with different processes for a true side-by-side comparison. Only problem is that I don't generally like low IBU beers (like 20 IBUs that Weezy advocated). I'm set up for 5 gallon batches so I'd end up with 15 gallons of beer I don't like.

Thanks for the follow-up on your beer. I'll be interested in your perception of the beer after a little conditioning and carbing.

Did you do any mixing of the priming sugar addition in the conical, or just dump and allow natural mixing? Just curious if you helped distribute the sugars evenly or just let gravity work on it.

As for the weezy experiment, even if it was 3 batches of my favorite beer, that's still 15 gallons of beer to drink! This is an instance when having a 1 gallon pilot system might prove useful

 

[Carlscan26]

@Weezy
I've read a lot of posts about low oxygen brewing from folks on forums over the last year, and the most righteous posts come from folks who have not tried brewing a low oxygen beer (or taken a single, deliberate step in that direction). Interestingly enough, throughout the last year, many of those "vocal" folks - some who were so adamantly against the "LoDO" paper and the people behind it - have taken the opportunity to implement some/all of the methods outlined in the PDF document you referred to, and guess what?(Rhet.) If you have never experienced a homebrew-scale low oxygen beer then you simply cannot know the difference in flavor and aroma of said beer, and you won't until you've had the opportunity to experience one.

So, you have two choices: You can either experience the low oxygen process and results, and speak first-hand about your experience; or you can continue rejecting the low oxygen brewing process/people/PDF, having never experienced it, and speak from a purely theoretical standpoint.

...and, gestalt, is probably a better word

@stpug at some point in your life you will be invited to join a group and they'll be great and you'll feel great. But please don't drink the *literal* kool-aid when it's offered to you.


@Weezy is right. We don't need to drink the kool-aid and experience the kool-aid and speak first hand about the kool-aid. If the kool-aid is better than normal powdered drink mix then there are ways to show that without having to individually experience it. The triangle taste test for example. Empirical measurements of the process. For the amount of time and energy spent arguing, certainly someone could have invested in actual measurements to validate the perceived results. And then publish those in a reasonable manner. I'm a scientist by training - which means I was trained to be skeptical. "Hey man you gotta try this trust me I can't back it up but it's just better" will never convince me. It's not up to me to prove you wrong. If you want to make me a believer then prove you're right with real evidence. Not gestalt.

Once you have that I'll try the LODO method. But I have yet to be convinced that it's worth the effort or costs.

 

[PlinyTheMiddleAged]

Thanks for the follow-up on your beer. I'll be interested in your perception of the beer after a little conditioning and carbing.



Did you do any mixing of the priming sugar addition in the conical, or just dump and allow natural mixing? Just curious if you helped distribute the sugars evenly or just let gravity work on it.



As for the weezy experiment, even if it was 3 batches of my favorite beer, that's still 15 gallons of beer to drink! This is an instance when having a 1 gallon pilot system might prove useful

stpug,

I'll be interested in my perception too!

I poured the corn sugar solution in to a funnel with a piece of hose attached. The idea was to get solution into the beer with minimal splashing even though I was keeping the headspace full of CO2 by flowing some in at the same time.

I've been thinking about trying a few one gallon batches. Like I said earlier, I don't have a DO meter to see what the NaMBS is doing to DO levels, so I'm not ready to gather "evidence" and share beers with anyone. Right now, I'm just trying to make better beer and it'd be interesting (to me) to make two very similar beers with and without LoDO techniques.

PlinyTheMiddleAged

 

[BrunDog]

To weezy and the other "prove it" guys... this has been hashed ad nauseum in the main thread. The authors don't owe you something based in scientific proof. This is a community forum where people offer ideas and experiences. If you don't like someone's, move on. If every claim made here were debunked based on the lack of evidence, we would be making beer like cave men.

 

[stpug]

@stpug at some point in your life you will be invited to join a group and they'll be great and you'll feel great. But please don't drink the *literal* kool-aid when it's offered to you.


@Weezy is right. We don't need to drink the kool-aid and experience the kool-aid and speak first hand about the kool-aid. If the kool-aid is better than normal powdered drink mix then there are ways to show that without having to individually experience it. The triangle taste test for example. Empirical measurements of the process. For the amount of time and energy spent arguing, certainly someone could have invested in actual measurements to validate the perceived results. And then publish those in a reasonable manner. I'm a scientist by training - which means I was trained to be skeptical. "Hey man you gotta try this trust me I can't back it up but it's just better" will never convince me. It's not up to me to prove you wrong. If you want to make me a believer then prove you're right with real evidence. Not gestalt.

Once you have that I'll try the LODO method. But I have yet to be convinced that it's worth the effort or costs.

All I can do is share the experience I've had with the process (good and bad) and if that helps someone along the way then great; if not, no worries, it's all good. I'm not going to spoon feed anyone like I would a baby.

 

[passedpawn]

And if you want to get personal, I can too.

Oh come on. Let's not do that.

 

[halpinhe]

I stumbled upon this thread today. Had read a bit about LoDo but never in the context of BIAB. The deoxygenation of mash water to provide a wort that's already oxygen free sounds swell, but I bottle condition. In your experiences has anyone found that the LoDo approach on the hot side already makes a substantial difference even if you can't do full CO2 transfers into a purged keg to ensure no O2 pickup on the cold side?

 

[Bilsch]

In your experiences has anyone found that the LoDo approach on the hot side already makes a substantial difference even if you can't do full CO2 transfers into a purged keg to ensure no O2 pickup on the cold side?

When adding priming sugars before you bottle, your effectivly restarting fermentation which will scavenge oxygen introduced during the transfer. Some slight oxidative damage will happen but common wisdom is that it will be minimal. Therefore you should retain most of the fresh grain flavors saved by good lodo practices during the hot side.