Hot Side Aeration

[normonster]

... High quality crystal is expensive.

Works way better than redbull though.

 

[schematix]

But did they claim this HSA is relevant to non-mass-production brewing? Isn't it possible that the remaining yeast in our beers helps reduce kegged o2, and/or that constant refrigeration renders moot any staling effects? We don't have the same constraints as commercial brewers, so not all commercial practices are relevant, as we all agree.

You are misrepresenting what the LoDO guys are claiming. Their main contribution is saying a low DO-mash will give you something a non-LODO mash will not, provided the rest of your process is also low oxygen.

The size of the brewery does come into play here. Larger breweries have a much lower surface to volume ratio than at the HB level so they get some intrinsic protection from oxygen egress through the surface of the mash. However, the big guys DO de-aerate their mash water AND they also purge the head space in the tun with either steam or nitrogen.

Not surprising that Lodo disciples dismiss the Brulosophy experiment, since they seem to be setting up Lodo as an untestable religion, where any level of O2 *at all* *anywhere* ruins the beer. This is of course pure speculation. Nobody seems to be considering WHERE the sensitive points are, and thus, what solutions give the most bang for the buck.

The LoDO 'disciples' dismiss the Brulosophy experiment because both the control and the experimental samples underwent the exact process they are saying is problematic.

I've done the LoDO and can tell you with certainty its not untestable. The smell and taste of the wort is totally different than non-DO. If you tried it, you'd be able to confirm this.

Here's a quote from Charlie Bamforth who has studied this extensively: (Beersmith podcast #74)

Charlie is telling us that focusing on HSA is barking up the wrong tree.

This is another misrepresentation. That quote says if you're cold side doesn't address oxygen then you are wasting your time (LoDO guys say the exact same thing). But if you're cold side is solid, then there is some benefit.

I think the main fault of the LODO authors is in the way they presented their paper and making comments like you'll want to dump all your non-LODO beer. You can make good beer without LODO, but you can make even better beer with it. The overall tone of the paper was also a bit elitist.

 

[SpeedYellow]

...This is another misrepresentation. That quote says if you're cold side doesn't address oxygen then you are wasting your time (LoDO guys say the exact same thing). But if you're cold side is solid, then there is some benefit.

Charlie's quote speaks for itself. Keeping the beer refrigerated is "vastly, vastly, vastly" more important than *all* the O2 uptake in the brew house (not just mash). Clearly, mash O2 is way down the list. Concluding that mash O2 is still important sounds like the guy to whom the girl says: "I wouldn't marry you if you were the last man on earth!" to which the guy responds "So you're saying I have a chance."

The most reasonable working assumption for us is that keeping our beer refrigerated and minimizing o2 in the keg/bottle are the goals. Once you've done that, would these LODO practices have any more impact? LODO guys don't know -- it's total speculation. Worse, they don't seem to care. And that's what's so disgraceful about that "interesting PDF."

 

[KeyWestBrewing]

I think the tone of the paper gets things off on the wrong foot with people, myself being one of those people. LODO as a whole also seems to encompass a few concepts which I think creates some confusion.
Part of it is keeping the beer below levels that set off all sorts of staling reactions. Theres no shortage of information on this or much debate really. We know oxygen is bad for beer. The other part, where the argument really lies, is the hot side. Theres published research showing a lot of potential for downstream staling reactions that happen on the hot side. It's not just someones opinion there's real science supporting this.
Now heres the kicker... whether you believe preventing these reactions will allow you to achieve a whole new level of malt flavor is something entirely different and is an opinion people would have to make for themselves. But, I strongly feel its ignorant for people to not read the science for themselves and form your own conclusions.

One last interesting observation worth noting is the claim that most of the commercial beer people drink is already in a phase of changing in character due to oxidation. Stage B is how they word it. Its been proposed that while this is beyond the "factory fresh" or Stage A, people might actually prefer slightly oxidized beer. The example of imports is given and how many people prefer them even though the beer itself is usually well into Stage B or Stage C which is even further into oxidation. The point... while the science shows that these staling reactions are bad for the beer preventing them doesn't always equate towards a beer that people think tastes better.

 

[SpeedYellow]

I think the tone of the paper gets things off on the wrong foot with people, myself being one of those people.

Indeed the tone is awful. It masquerades as science but is an utter failure at the scientific method. He starts with a hypothesis (that minimizing o2 thru the brewing processes will improve flavor), then seemingly devises good procedures to create low o2 beer to test it, then simply declares the idea a winner (all other beer is garbage!), without testing the hypothesis. I'm 100% open to the ideas, but it's still just hypothesis.

It's amazing that so many people are slavishly following the ideas without any idea of the impact.

 

[KeyWestBrewing]

Indeed the tone is awful. It masquerades as science but is an utter failure at the scientific method. He starts with a hypothesis (that minimizing o2 thru the brewing processes will improve flavor), then seemingly devises good procedures to create low o2 beer to test it, then simply declares the idea a winner (all other beer is garbage!), without testing the hypothesis. I'm 100% open to the ideas, but it's still just hypothesis.

It's amazing that so many people are slavishly following the ideas without any idea of the impact.

While I respect what they've done I think the best thing for people to do is remove the PDF authors from the equation. Take a step back and just look at the information thats out there. These guys didn't come up with this hypothesis or these claims, a lot of it is based in the brewing literature they cited. What they did come up with is a way to apply it to the homebrew scale through some creative methods. Granted the way its been put forth comes off as a strong opinion, which some of it is. I don't think people should approach this with the mindset of finding the holy grail, though you could say thats what the authors were after chasing "it". I think the better mindset is, is any of this better for the beer and worth considering in my process?
You can make great beer with some pretty crude methods but it never hurts to evaluate our process and see if we can improve the final product in any way. Don't want to fall victim to the Einstellung effect.