Hot Side Aereation references

[murphyslaw]

Do you mean 'the LODO process removes the inherent flavors that all beer drinkers have become accustomed to tasting'? If so, you might be onto something, finally.

It's literally the first post of this thread.

LODO beers taste different. Better or worse is up to you.

You just ignore their point and argue against positions nobody is taking to make yourself feel clever. And you're quite rude about it.

I'm not sure why bassman and lupulus or anyone else bothers engaging with this jerk.

 

[cmac62]

Hot side O is pretty simple, yeast in the BK for about an hour at 90* f or so, use some AA and/or Kmeta in the mash and boil and a mash cap. I haven't used a mash cap much, but this does not seem to taxing or expensive. I have lots of bread yeast. I'm not sure how much difference it makes, but again it doesn't cause me any sweat either. I have a Anvil 10.5, and the night before brew day I heat my strike water to 90* pitch in a tsp of bread yeast and a tsp of sugar, then set it to heat up for mash in at around 6 a.m. When I get up I'm to go. I weigh and crush my grains, and try to keep the splashing to a minimum.

 

[Bilsch]

Imagine how funny it would be if at the end of the day it turns out that throwing in a tablespoon of vitamin c pre-mash has the same effect as all the combined lodo mambo jambo that has been created by enthusiastic brewers that read somewhere that vitamin c is a "superoxidiser" and therefore ditched the idea of using it.

I find this kind of funny. Your scoop of mambo Jambo is the real deal now and not our scoop of mambo jambo. If you had followed any of the lodo stuff you’d realize it was always about reducing oxygen in the hot side and not about any one specific way to accomplish that goal. We are in constant flux on this point with experiments being done all the time to optimize the process and chemistry. I told you near the beginning of this thread I thought it was great you guys were working on lodo. This neener neener my antioxidant is better stuff is childish. Besides you are way to early in the experimental stage to be making such claims especially without sealed systems equipped with in process DO, pH, temperature, gravity sampling and data recording capability.

Hey you could be right for all we know since we haven’t explored AA by itself but again mash chemistry is complex so it’s going to take a while to get good accurate data.
So in the mean time what do you say we all keep an open mind, do our research and see if we can help one another make better beer?

 

[davidabcd]

After having read the above thread, I have a question: is it possible for someone here to simply post (without links) the results from a couple of scientists who've recorded the components of beer made using HSA and without using HSA? With that data, the comparison can be made and then it should be fairly easy to clear up any disagreements.

 

[McMullan]

After having read the above thread, I have a question: is it possible for someone here to simply post (without links) the results from a couple of scientists who've recorded the components of beer made using HSA and without using HSA? With that data, the comparison can be made and then it should be fairly easy to clear up any disagreements.

There's a marginal difference that translates into a little more product stability for some commercial breweries. What does it translate to for home brewers? That's the real question of interest here. In terms of long-term storage, e.g., for big beers, I expect pleasant oxidative reactions to develop and complement the end product. Apart from that, most home brewed beers are consumed before they have a chance to go stale.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

That's the real question of interest here. In terms of long-term storage, e.g., for big beers, I expect pleasant oxidative reactions to develop and complement the end product. Apart from that, most home brewed beers are consumed before they have a chance to go stale.

... and for those who are curious about ideas for better packaging techniques, there have been a number of topics here (and in other home brewing forums) where people are reporting successfully bottling beer that stays enjoyable for them for 3 to 4 months.

(Yes, @madscientist451, I looked at the presentation).

 

[Bassman2003]

After having read the above thread, I have a question: is it possible for someone here to simply post (without links) the results from a couple of scientists who've recorded the components of beer made using HSA and without using HSA? With that data, the comparison can be made and then it should be fairly easy to clear up any disagreements.

Yes. Make a thread in this forum (LODO forum) and we all can discuss. But I can tell you ahead of time, the toughest part about experiments with HSA is actually making a wort without it or very low levels. The experiments in the past (two listed here) are not thought of very highly when it comes to process. It is not just about keep the splashing to a minimum. I prefer the term HSO (hot side oxidation) which implies something happens to the wort instead of something one does to the wort.

 

[davidabcd]

stays enjoyable for them for 3 to 4 months.

I get longer than that without any extra effort and beer that's not even gotten good until then.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

stays enjoyable for them for 3 to 4 months.

I get longer than that without any extra effort and beer that's not even gotten good until then.

FWIW, in most of those topics, they were bottling NEIPAs / hazys. And this was a couple of years ago when "conventional wisdom" said it couldn't be done.

 

[McMullan]

... and for those who are curious about ideas for better packaging techniques, there have been a number of topics here (and in other home brewing forums) where people are reporting successfully bottling beer that stays enjoyable for them for 3 to 4 months.

View attachment 759783

(Yes, @madscientist451, I looked at the presentation).

Yes, in certain home brew situations, I agree, the use of antioxidants, like vitamin C, might well have a genuine application, e.g. dry hopping heavily hopped beers. Absolutely. But it's not a binary choice, generally, for home brewers.

 

[davidabcd]

hey were bottling NEIPAs / hazys

I am aware.

 

[davidabcd]

There's a marginal difference that translates into a little more product stability for some commercial breweries. What does it translate to for home brewers? That's the real question of interest here. In terms of long-term storage, e.g., for big beers, I expect pleasant oxidative reactions to develop and complement the end product. Apart from that, most home brewed beers are consumed before they have a chance to go stale.

So, basically, according to you , it's based on science. Great.
We won't ever technically know how it translates for the home brewer.

 

[McMullan]

So, basically, according to you , it's based on science. Great.
We won't ever technically know how it translates for the home brewer.

Why?

 

[McMullan]

Yes. Make a thread in this forum (LODO forum) and we all can discuss. But I can tell you ahead of time, the toughest part about experiments with HSA is actually making a wort without it or very low levels. The experiments in the past (two listed here) are not thought of very highly when it comes to process. It is not just about keep the splashing to a minimum. I prefer the term HSO (hot side oxidation) which implies something happens to the wort instead of something one does to the wort.

Why the sudden shift from HSA to HSO? Have you been listening? Penny dropped? Why a little hot air is just a little hot air?

 

[davidabcd]

Why?

If the science is there, it's there (based on what you said), whether on a single HB batch or a Macro. You'll never know what it brings to the table because you can't accurately measure people's taste--a percentage "for" and a percentage "against."

 

[McMullan]

If the science is there, it's there (based on what you said), whether on a single HB batch or a Macro. You'll never know what it brings to the table because you can't accurately measure people's taste--a percentage "for" and a percentage "against."

The main driver is beer stability for commercial breweries who need to max said stability. There's no reason why home brewers can't 'apply the science' productively in certain situations.

 

[murphyslaw]

I am aware.

Your NEIPAs don't get good until 3 or 4 months? I find mine are best at 4-6 weeks.

So, basically, according to you , it's based on science. Great.
We won't ever technically know how it translates for the home brewer.

There's science that says its real and a number of homebrewers who have tried and think it translates. Does that mean they're right or that it would work for you? No. But what more do you want?

The great thing about this hobby is that places like this exist to share thoughts and theories and experiences. We can then try and see for ourselves. I think its awfully kind of people to spend their time explaining what works for them and trying to help others. I'll never understand the perspective that other people bear the burden of convincing me of something that I'm unwilling try to myself.

BTW, Bassmans' video showing his hot break was pretty compelling to me. At least as far as demonstrating that there's something happening. Good or bad is subjective.

 

[micraftbeer]

If the science is there, it's there (based on what you said), whether on a single HB batch or a Macro. You'll never know what it brings to the table because you can't accurately measure people's taste--a percentage "for" and a percentage "against."

In these discussions, my mind keeps coming back to this. @McMullan likes his "data data data" chant. And I think we probably can recognize that there is no pure chemical reaction equation we can "solve" for a delicious beer. We can't stick a meter in a beer and have it read Delicious or DumpIt. I would guess that even if you ran your beer through a mass spectrometer (or whatever the right instrument is) to spit out all the constituents and amounts, no one could legitimately tell you the beer is delicious. Off-flavors are probably pretty well fingerprinted that you could define a flavor threshhold that once you cross it, you're in the neighborhood of that bad flavor being offensive. But I don't think there is a defined "beer deliciousness" compound that can similarly be measured.

So data for this seems to come down to subjective BLIND tastings. It could be that the lock on oxidation compounds isn't the compound that really defines the subjective deliciousness that some have said to have achieved. So just measuring oxide compounds might not tell you the true benefit of "LODO" brewing.

Good experiments on tasting will be challenging and time-consuming to do, but it seems that is the "data data data" that would be useful.

 

[McMullan]

In these discussions, my mind keeps coming back to this. @McMullan likes his "data data data" chant. And I think we probably can recognize that there is no pure chemical reaction equation we can "solve" for a delicious beer. We can't stick a meter in a beer and have it read Delicious or DumpIt. I would guess that even if you ran your beer through a mass spectrometer (or whatever the right instrument is) to spit out all the constituents and amounts, no one could legitimately tell you the beer is delicious. Off-flavors are probably pretty well fingerprinted that you could define a flavor threshhold that once you cross it, you're in the neighborhood of that bad flavor being offensive. But I don't think there is a defined "beer deliciousness" compound that can similarly be measured.

So data for this seems to come down to subjective BLIND tastings. It could be that the lock on oxidation compounds isn't the compound that really defines the subjective deliciousness that some have said to have achieved. So just measuring oxide compounds might not tell you the true benefit of "LODO" brewing.

Good experiments on tasting will be challenging and time-consuming to do, but it seems that is the "data data data" that would be useful.

It's not a chant, mate. It's standard practice. Like I've already typed, it's all about the data, data, data. Not the blah, blah, blah. Science, that is. Those playing 'science' need to get a grip on that. Or just admit they're not doing science. A little bit like that head brewer from Navada talking the talk on YouTube

 

[micraftbeer]

Do you think there is a defined chemical compound that correlates to beer deliciousness? And as such, the data you would collect to prove the effectiveness of these processes could be defined purely by chemical analysis?

 

[micraftbeer]

The reason for my question is that I think the important question is "Do LODO brewing techniques create a better tasing beer", not "Do LODO brewing techniques create fewer oxidation compounds in the finished beer". If we were solely focused on oxidation compounds, then it seems that would be straightforward to do a chemical analysis and compare the results between two mash processes. And then you could debate how important a certain level of oxidation is on the homebrew scale, or homebrew storage, distribution, and consumption timeline.

But I think the more intriguing part of LODO claims is that it makes the beer taste better. That, I think, requires subjective qualitative assessments, not measurable quantitative assessments.

 

[McMullan]

Do you think there is a defined chemical compound that correlates to beer deliciousness? And as such, the data you would collect to prove the effectiveness of these processes could be defined purely by chemical analysis?

No, wort therefore beer is an extremely complex biological media. A single compound is going to taste like, wait for it, a single compound. One-dimensional. Boring. Can we measure 'it'? The incredibly complex media? Yes, we can.

 

[Lupulus]

After having read the above thread, I have a question: is it possible for someone here to simply post (without links) the results from a couple of scientists who've recorded the components of beer made using HSA and without using HSA? With that data, the comparison can be made and then it should be fairly easy to clear up any disagreements.

Thanks for asking politely.
The reason one quotes references and not link to actual papers are related to copyright laws. Unfortunately, if you are interested, you will need to find the books and papers using your own means. Hopefully, you can get loans from libraries or through a University that does exchange with others.
Others may have posted the papers that I mentioned above. The Wurzbacher dissertation, albeit in German, is probably free to download.
All the best!

 

[tracer bullet]

It's not a chant, mate. It's standard practice. Like I've already typed, it's all about the data, data, data. Not the blah, blah, blah.

I kind of randomly selected this to ask - what exactly is your stance on the subject? HSA, that is. I don't have a dog in this fight and won't argue it either way, just kind of curious what you're driving at. It seems that you believe HSA can exist, and in certain situations it should be controlled, but homebrewers can't have those situations?

Again, just curious.

 

[McMullan]

I kind of randomly selected this to ask - what exactly is your stance on the subject? HSA, that is. I don't have a dog in this fight and won't argue it either way, just kind of curious what you're driving at. It seems that you believe HSA can exist, and in certain situations it should be controlled, but homebrewers can't have those situations?

Again, just curious.

Oxidation is the norm regardless. It's a fact of life on Earth. Most of us aren't wired to sense it as a negative factor generally. It's how we've evolved, literally, not just since craft beer. That's not to say we can't all agree when a beer has gone stale or otherwise flawed by oxidation. I'm assuming here we've all nailed the process successfully and produced a nice beer, which we can do without trying to consciously limit aeration during the mash. 'HSA' and 'LODO' are mainly misnomers for oxidation in home brewing. There are far more reactive oxidants than oxygen being introduced from the malted barley and, later in the process, hops and the yeast. Focusing on HSA seems a bit pointless, in reality, unless you're a commercial brewer with beer stability problems to solve. If a home brewer is hypersensitive to certain oxidised compounds and s/he perceives better results when applying practices that reduce oxidation, e.g. adding antioxidants like ascorbic acid, that's great. It works for them and s/he should be doing what works for them. I suspect there's some mileage in adding AA when dry hopping heavily, too, where simply limiting air/O2 might not be enough to prevent noticeable impacts of oxidation, due to the high level of endogenous hop oxidants being added.

 

[Miraculix]

I find this kind of funny. Your scoop of mambo Jambo is the real deal now and not our scoop of mambo jambo. If you had followed any of the lodo stuff you’d realize it was always about reducing oxygen in the hot side and not about any one specific way to accomplish that goal. We are in constant flux on this point with experiments being done all the time to optimize the process and chemistry. I told you near the beginning of this thread I thought it was great you guys were working on lodo. This neener neener my antioxidant is better stuff is childish. Besides you are way to early in the experimental stage to be making such claims especially without sealed systems equipped with in process DO, pH, temperature, gravity sampling and data recording capability.

Hey you could be right for all we know since we haven’t explored AA by itself but again mash chemistry is complex so it’s going to take a while to get good accurate data.
So in the mean time what do you say we all keep an open mind, do our research and see if we can help one another make better beer?

I think you got me slightly wrong. I never said that "my" antioxidant is better. What I do say is I am a dude throwing a teaspoon of AA into the mash being happy that the results tastes better to him than without it.

The mambo Jambo starts to me when people claim to be scientists on homebrew level in their kitchen, developing obscure methods to solve issues they made up themselves, with all the defensiveness in the world, once challenged a bit. All fun and games, I love to experiment, but I'm at least a bit aware that I'm just a random bloke throwing ascorbic acid into the mash on the hob in his kitchen. That's all.

And now, to go back to the initial post, imagine how funny it would be if it turns out that this teaspoon of AA into the mash would lead to the same result as all the other Mambo Jambo combined?

 

[Taket_al_Tauro]

There are far more reactive oxidants than oxygen being introduced from the malted barley and, later in the process, hops and the yeast. Focusing on HSA seems a bit pointless, in reality, unless you're a commercial brewer with beer stability problems to solve.

Let's preface that I too belong to the fence sitters regarding LODO and it is not my intention to take a stance in this debate.
Yet there is something that puzzles me about your argumentation.

You say there is a crap load of ROS in malted barley, so that worrying abour HSA is pointless.
Immediately afterwards you say that for a commercial brewer focused on beer stability it could still make sense to worry a bit about HSA.
However, the commercial brewer has to deal exactly with the same crapload of ROS from barley malt as the average homebrewer, isn't it? It's not that they have access to some super elite kind of malted barley with reduced ROS content, and we do not. At least not to my knowledge.

So if the presence of those ROS in the malt nullify any effort to reduce HSA, wouldn't this be the same for the macros and homebrewers alike? Or am I missing something here?

 

[McMullan]

Let's preface that I too belong to the fence sitters regarding LODO and it is not my intention to take a stance in this debate.
Yet there is something that puzzles me about your argumentation
(It probably is the same thing that puzzled @tracer bullet two posts back).

You say there is a crap load of ROS in malted barley, so that worrying abour HSA is pointless.
Immediately afterwards you say that for a commercial brewer focused on beer stability it could still make sense to worry a bit about HSA.
However, the commercial brewer has to deal exactly with the same crapload of ROS from barley malt as the average homebrewer, isn't it? It's not that they have access to some super elite kind of malted barley with reduced ROS content, and we do not. At least not to my knowledge.

So if the presence of those ROS in the malt nullify any effort to reduce HSA, wouldn't this be the same for the macros and homebrewers alike? Or am I missing something here?

Home brew as well as a lot of local commercial beer gets consumed locally while it’s fresh, i.e., before it’s had time to change much and go stale. Some big commercials produce more beer than can be sold locally so it has to be transported somewhere else and remain as stable as possible, until it gets consumed. Beer is a little bit like liquid bread and, like bread, best consumed fresh, before it starts going stale. Why would we strive to maximise stability/shelf life of these short-lived beers? They remain sufficiently stable without any intervention. I can understand why some commercials adopt procedures to limit oxidation, but not others or home brewers. It makes no sense, unless you don’t like beer for some reason that can be altered by ‘LODO’ brewing practices, I guess. That doesn’t include most beer drinkers, I suspect.

 

[Miraculix]

Let's preface that I too belong to the fence sitters regarding LODO and it is not my intention to take a stance in this debate.
Yet there is something that puzzles me about your argumentation.

You say there is a crap load of ROS in malted barley, so that worrying abour HSA is pointless.
Immediately afterwards you say that for a commercial brewer focused on beer stability it could still make sense to worry a bit about HSA.
However, the commercial brewer has to deal exactly with the same crapload of ROS from barley malt as the average homebrewer, isn't it? It's not that they have access to some super elite kind of malted barley with reduced ROS content, and we do not. At least not to my knowledge.

So if the presence of those ROS in the malt nullify any effort to reduce HSA, wouldn't this be the same for the macros and homebrewers alike? Or am I missing something here?

What does ROS stand for?

 

[murphyslaw]

Let's preface that I too belong to the fence sitters regarding LODO and it is not my intention to take a stance in this debate.
Yet there is something that puzzles me about your argumentation.

You say there is a crap load of ROS in malted barley, so that worrying abour HSA is pointless.
Immediately afterwards you say that for a commercial brewer focused on beer stability it could still make sense to worry a bit about HSA.
However, the commercial brewer has to deal exactly with the same crapload of ROS from barley malt as the average homebrewer, isn't it? It's not that they have access to some super elite kind of malted barley with reduced ROS content, and we do not. At least not to my knowledge.

So if the presence of those ROS in the malt nullify any effort to reduce HSA, wouldn't this be the same for the macros and homebrewers alike? Or am I missing something here?

The LODO crowd, it seems to me, believe reducing oxidation leads to a) better stability and b) subjectively, better taste.

His argument now, as it's changed a bit over the course of this thread, is that long term stability isn't important to a homebrewer, and that taste is subjective. So although he is arguing with everyone in this tread, he doesn't actually dispute what the LODO folk are saying.

He merely disagrees whether one of the two "benefits" is an important goal for homebrewers while ignoring the other. Of course he probably agrees that better tasting beer is an important goal. But he dismisses it as subjective and unprovable, which, duh.

Unfortunately, that is how every one of these discussions goes.