Interesting German Brewing PDF

[techbrau]

I have the 4th Edition of Kunze's book and it appears that the pagination is not consistent with that of your edition. Could you describe the chapter title and subsection that you are referring too. I do want to read about this.

In the 5th edition it is near section 3.2.1.6: Conversion of fatty matter (lipids)

 

[wobdee]

I'm assuming BIAB is out of the question for this low oxygen technique since the bag is squeezed (pretty hard in most cases). Squeezing would introduce oxygen during the squeeze and the splash back into the MT/BK.

Depends on how you do it. Lift the bag up a little at a time instead of just pulling it right out a foot above the kettle. Once most of it is drained remove bag to a bucket or another kettle and let it drain naturally and add that wort back to the boil.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Depends on how you do it. Lift the bag up a little at a time instead of just pulling it right out a foot above the kettle. Once most of it is drained remove bag to a bucket or another kettle and let it drain naturally and add that wort back to the boil.

Probably would send my efficiency from 78 to 55. I guess that's part of the sacrifice for low oxygen.

Really wish I had a DO meter. Even if I wasn't shooting for all the steps itd be interesting as to how much oxygen gets introduced during my normal process.

 

[wobdee]

Probably would send my efficiency from 78 to 55. I guess that's part of the sacrifice for low oxygen.

Really wish I had a DO meter. Even if I wasn't shooting for all the steps itd be interesting as to how much oxygen gets introduced during my normal process.

Nah, you won't lose that much, maybe a couple points if that. Squeezing doesn't really give better efficiency just gives you an extra cup or two of wort.

 

[doug293cz]

Nah, you won't lose that much, maybe a couple points if that. Squeezing doesn't really give better efficiency just gives you an extra cup or two of wort.

Squeezing does improve the mash efficiency, which is the percent of potential sugar than makes it into the BK. Squeezing won't improve your conversion efficiency, but it will improve your lauter efficiency.

Brew on

 

[BrunDog]

There are a whole passel of craft brewers that don't do half of what you're advocating, and they're still making amazing beer. I don't do this stuff, and I've gotten a ribbon or two for my brews.

Can it make a difference in the finished product? Maybe. Is it worth the effort to chase some 'special, elusive flavor'? In my opinion: No. The return for all the effort/equipment seems too small, potentially nonexistent.

I'm all about limiting O2 pickup after fermentation, and I'll probably start adding O2 after pitching yeast based on some of the info. Other than that, some of what's been passed on seems too much like faith based gospel.

In closing, I leave you a humorous image:

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the validity of the claims unless you have experienced them firsthand. The science is very sound, so to me it is worth learning more and conducting the mini-mash test. It sound like you don't like the possible reality that what we have accepted as gospel may not be correct. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I will personally withhold judgment until I disprove the claims (or not) myself.

 

[orangehero]

The science is very sound, so to me it is worth learning more and conducting the mini-mash test.

Could you elaborate on what is the very sound science? Obviously there are oxygen dependent reactions in the mash, but in the paper I see little to no objective analysis of the qualitative differences. AJ's anecdote about his two lagers is very approriate and I wouldn't be surprised the situation is similar regarding the "characteristic low-oxygen flavor if you look for it".

 

[BrunDog]

Obviously there are oxygen dependent reactions in the mash...

Right! Oxygen is a highly reactive agent that forms compounds with most other elements. Pretty confident that need not be proven here.

As far as qualitative inspection, I agree that the paper does not provide such evidence. They (or another interested party) should conduct legitimate blinded trials to support the claims. But that is why I suggest you don't eschew the concept until you have experience. AJ's example was not a blinded experiment, as he will readily admit, which served to expose human bias, rather then reduce it.

I am not saying the paper is valid or invalid. I said the science makes sense and warrants actual testing, hence the recommendation of conducting the mini mash. I certainly don't like the idea that I would need to dramatically change my previously accepted process, but I have also spent a fair amount of money and time to produce high quality beer. If this proves legitimate to me, and the improvement is worth the additional time and expense, I would likely pursue it.

 

[ajdelange]

Oxygen is really hungry for electrons to the point that any other chemical entity that behaves this way is called an 'oxidizing agent' even though it may contain no oxygen (but often does). And it goes after them with great vigor. It took our precedents millions of years to evolve to the point where we could transfer electrons to oxygen in the air without bursting into flame and therefore crawl up out of the sea. That science is firmly established and you can read about it on the web, in biochemistry books etc.

Now the organoleptic aspect of this is a different matter. The hypothesis that beers might be improved by protecting them at all points in the process is a reasonable one. I think we have established that oxygen in packaged beer promotes early staling and I would say the proof of that is that the large part of the cost of a bottling machine is there because of the parts that are used to protect from oxygen, that Orbisphere is in business and so on. At the same time I'm sure you can find lots of stuff in the literature on the subject of excluding O2 from packaged beer. You can doubtless find articles on exclusion from other parts of the process too but that might require some digging. I think what you are looking for is the results of double blind triangle tests comparing beers that were unusually well protected from oxygen to ones more normally protected at various phases. If indeed some German breweries are using special techniques to exclude oxygen then I think we can take this as proof that the capital investment is more than offset by increased sales for those breweries. Note that increased sales and better beer are not necessarily the same thing. At the same time I think we can take the continued use of sinks in breweries like Pilsner Urquell as evidence that at least some markets like some oxidized flavor.

The guys behind this paper don't have the resources to do all the necessary testing. I think we need to be grateful to them for doing what they have done and sharing it even should it turn out to be total BS (which I am not suggesting it will).

 

[orangehero]

Their comments about there being no malt aroma from the mash as proof that the mash is not being oxidized are certainly curious. What is the science there?

If indeed some German breweries are using special techniques to exclude oxygen then I think we can take this as proof that the capital investment is more than offset by increased sales for those breweries. Note that increased sales and better beer are not necessarily the same thing. At the same time I think we can take the continued use of sinks in breweries like Pilsner Urquell as evidence that at least some markets like some oxidized flavor.

Well that's one way to interpret it.

Are not world class examples of every style made without using special low oxygen techniques?

Personally I'm just not sure exactly what they are talking about, but then I haven't suckled Helles straight from the teat either.

 

[The_Bishop]

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the validity of the claims unless you have experienced them firsthand. The science is very sound, so to me it is worth learning more and conducting the mini-mash test. It sound like you don't like the possible reality that what we have accepted as gospel may not be correct. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I will personally withhold judgment until I disprove the claims (or not) myself.

I'm not being quick to dismiss their claims.

Where's the 'science'?

That test mash fails as conclusive proof one way or the other. You are using different parameters in the main part of the testing medium (water) which may introduce other changes in the outcome (mineral composition of the wort, other alterations in mash reactions) that render any conclusions suspect, at best.

A real apples to apples comparison would use deoxygenated water in one test, not an additive to suppress oxygenation that consequently changes the mineral composition and potentially alters other reactions going on in the mash. Then perform a second mash with the *same* water, sans the de-oxygenating step. Both worts must be boiled, hopped, fermented with the same yeast strain, etc. Then, the *final* product can be tested to see if it made any appreciable differences.

There's a distinct lack of conclusive proof that all this effort and energy expenditure makes an iota of difference in the finished product. I'm not terribly concerned with how the wort tastes, I'm concerned with how the finished beer tastes.

The problem with the 'paper' is that it's presented in a very 'gospel' like way, that 'this is the only way to do things' in pursuit of an 'elusive, special flavor' without any real testing of a *finished product*. The wort is an intermediate step to finished beer. Differences there may not translate into meaningful changes in the finished product.

In short? You could post the hypothesis that there may be a benefit to reducing oxygen introduced during the mashing process, instead of proclaiming "OMG guys I totally found the holy grail of that 'special elusive' flavor and here's the only way to do it!" and there might be a little better reaction to what the hypothesis is and more open discussion.

 

[ajdelange]

Their comments about there being no malt aroma from the mash as proof that the mash is not being oxidized are certainly curious. What is the science there?

The implication is that it is oxidized malt compounds that are volatile and, thus, responsible for malt aromas. That is, of course, a hypothesis on my part.

Are not world class examples of every style made without using special low oxygen techniques?

Yes, and that's what the comment about the sinks at PU was supposed to convey.

 

[BrunDog]

I'm not being quick to dismiss their claims.

Where's the 'science'?

That test mash fails as conclusive proof one way or the other. You are using different parameters in the main part of the testing medium (water) which may introduce other changes in the outcome (mineral composition of the wort, other alterations in mash reactions) that render any conclusions suspect, at best.

A real apples to apples comparison would use deoxygenated water in one test, not an additive to suppress oxygenation that consequently changes the mineral composition and potentially alters other reactions going on in the mash. Then perform a second mash with the *same* water, sans the de-oxygenating step. Both worts must be boiled, hopped, fermented with the same yeast strain, etc. Then, the *final* product can be tested to see if it made any appreciable differences.

There's a distinct lack of conclusive proof that all this effort and energy expenditure makes an iota of difference in the finished product. I'm not terribly concerned with how the wort tastes, I'm concerned with how the finished beer tastes.

The problem with the 'paper' is that it's presented in a very 'gospel' like way, that 'this is the only way to do things' in pursuit of an 'elusive, special flavor' without any real testing of a *finished product*. The wort is an intermediate step to finished beer. Differences there may not translate into meaningful changes in the finished product.

In short? You could post the hypothesis that there may be a benefit to reducing oxygen introduced during the mashing process, instead of proclaiming "OMG guys I totally found the holy grail of that 'special elusive' flavor and here's the only way to do it!" and there might be a little better reaction to what the hypothesis is and more open discussion.

There is a distinct lack of conclusive proof that drinking a glass of plutonium will kill you, but the concept of radiation toxicity is nonetheless well appreciated.

Do or don't what you like. The author proposed adding sulfate to the non-DO water to make the waters similar, but I know you'll continue to find reasons to say the proposal is crap no matter what, likely because it contradicts your accepted beliefs and practices. I'm open to the idea and will decide after I have direct experience.

 

[The_Bishop]

There is a distinct lack of conclusive proof that drinking a glass of plutonium will kill you, but the concept of radiation toxicity is nonetheless well appreciated.

Do or don't what you like. The author proposed adding sulfate to the non-DO water to make the waters similar, but I know you'll continue to find reasons to say the proposal is crap no matter what, likely because it contradicts your accepted beliefs and practices. I'm open to the idea and will decide after I have direct experience.

You're wrong, on both counts.

There *is* proof that drinking a glass of plutonium will kill you. It's a toxic, radioactive substance. Also, it's solid and very difficult to drink, so you'd probably choke on it.

I'm not saying the proposal is wrong (crap, in your parlance), I'm just saying that there's a lack of proof to show that it's an earth-shattering alteration to brewing science. I'm open to new ideas, when they're offered in a meaningful way with some sort of proof and not anecdotal evidence based on improper scientific method.

 

[rabeb25]

I'm not being quick to dismiss their claims.

Where's the 'science'?

Technology Brewing and Malting (English Version)
Price: 149,00€ inkl. 7% MwSt., zuzügl. Versandkosten
Autor: Wolfgang Kunze
ISBN: 978-3-921690-77-2
Auflage: 5th revised English Edition, August 2014, 960 Pages, Hardcover

Link: https://www.vlb-berlin.org/en/technology-brewing-and-malting

Table of Contents: https://www.vlb-berlin.org/sites/de...ting/technologybrewingmalting2014-content.pdf

The book – in brewers’ circles well-known as just the “Kunze”– has accompanied countless brewers and maltsters on their way into and through the professional practice since its first edition in 1961. Meanwhile more than 30,000 German, about 13,000 English, 6000 Chinese, 3500 Russian and 1500 Spanish copies have been printed. It has also been translated into Polish, Serbian and Hungarian. The 5th English Edition has been revised, partly updated and has been upgraded with a new modern layout. It contains 960 pages with more than 850 figures.

Contents

Raw materials: Barley, hops, water, yeast, adjuncts
Malt production
Wort production
Beer production: Fermention, maturation, filtration, stabilisation
Filling the beer: One-way/returnable glass bottles, PET, cans, kegs
Cleaning and disinfection
Finished beer: Ingredients, beer types, quality
Small scale brewing
Waste disposal and the environment
Energy management in the brewery and malting
Automation and plant planning

The Author
Wolfgang Kunze, born in 1926, is a qualified brewer and maltster and studied brewing engineering at the VLB Berlin. For 38 years, he was a teacher and head of the Dresden Brewer’s School and introduced generations of young brewers and maltsters to the art of beer brewing. His comprehensive knowledge and didactic experience, which he vividly conveys in his book, have made “Technology Brewing and Malting” over the last 50 years to what it is today: a standard work – worldwide.




The Yeast In The Brewery (English Version)
Price: 79,00€ inkl. 7% MwSt., zuzügl. Versandkosten
Autor: Gerolf Annemüller, Hans-J. Manger, Peter Lietz
ISBN: 978-3-921690-67-3
Auflage: 1st English Edition, November 2011, 440 p, hardcover, s/w, about 180 figures, 220 tables

Link: https://www.vlb-berlin.org/en/publications/specialist-publications/the-yeast-the-brewery
Table of Contents: https://www.vlb-berlin.org/sites/de...-the-brewery/vlb-yeast2011-tableofcontent.pdf

The brewing yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. is the most important microorganism for the production of beer. Beside the raw materials malt, hops and water the properties of the yeast infuence in a decisive way the quality of the end product beer and the productivity of the fermentation and maturation processes in the brewery.
*“The Yeast in the Brewery” is the English translation of a successful German publication written by Prof. Dr. Gerolf Annemüller und Dr. Hans-J. Manger. On 440 pages the book describes the fundamental technical aspects of the industrial application of brewing yeast in the brewing process.

From the content:

Some historical facts about the development of the pure yeast cultures
Why it is necessary to regenerate the pitching yeast and what are their demands in the brewery?
Important microbiological and biochemical fundamentals of the yeast multiplication and their significance fo the pure yeast culture and for the yeast propagation
Machinery, equipment and plants for yeast pure culture and propagation
Yeast management in the brewery
Recovery of barm beer and alternatives of utilization of barm beer and surplus yeast




The rest are here:

 

[The_Bishop]

I appreciate the links to the books, but I'm not keen on spending $170 for the brewing and malting book to research someone else's claims. I don't see how the yeast book is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Edit: Braukaiser looked into it a bit.

http://braukaiser.com/blog/blog/2016/04/30/low-oxygen-brewing/

Again, at this point in time, it's theory. If it does pan out, as it states on Braukaiser's site, it may only be useful for a small subset of beers.

 

[rabeb25]

You asked for the science, so I provided you with the books that did the "science". So what you chose to do with it is certainly up to you. I do suggest Kunze though. It will blow your mind.

That's not true. I have used this method for more than a year recreating many styles... German, American, and others with Belgians. The whole you must drink your pale ales and ipas fresh thing goes right out the window. I have a 6 month old pale ale that is exploding with lingering malt and tastes like it was dry hopped yesterday. However, that's not to say it's for everything, especially for styles that have been built around oxidation (English beers for example). Regardless of style you will never catch me oxidating a beer on purpose. Once you "do it right" you will never be able to look at an oxidated beer again.

 

[The_Bishop]

I would love to read the Kunze books. However, the price tag puts them out of reach... for now.

I think you can keep beer that fresh by limiting O2 post ferment. Again, I'm not saying the process doesn't work; I'm just wondering how viable it is on a small/homebrewer scale.

I brew single vessel electric with a stainless basket. It wouldn't be hard to test this process with the setup I have, as I can put my milled grain in the basket (I condition already) and slowly lower the grist into the kettle after boiling/Metabisulfite. The problem is my chiller is a copper counterflow and I can't see changing it out for a test.

 

[rabeb25]

I would love to read the Kunze books. However, the price tag puts them out of reach... for now.

I think you can keep beer that fresh by limiting O2 post ferment. Again, I'm not saying the process doesn't work; I'm just wondering how viable it is on a small/homebrewer scale.

I brew single vessel electric with a stainless basket. It wouldn't be hard to test this process with the setup I have, as I can put my milled grain in the basket (I condition already) and slowly lower the grist into the kettle after boiling/Metabisulfite. The problem is my chiller is a copper counterflow and I can't see changing it out for a test.

Not malt flavors you can't preserve them once they are oxidized, dry hop flavor and aroma.. sure.

Here is just once small excerpt in the literal hundreds in Kunze about o2..

 

[mabrungard]

If it does pan out, as it states on Braukaiser's site, it may only be useful for a small subset of beers.

I agree with that sentiment. I expect that the most delicate, malt focused beers have the greatest probability of benefiting from LoDO. I'm not sure if I can get there, but I'm willing to try. I think the recommendations from that paper have a decent amount of scientific support and are worth exploring. I'm searching for ways to get closer to that LoDO condition to see if it makes a difference in my light lagers.

 

[techbrau]

I agree with that sentiment. I expect that the most delicate, malt focused beers have the greatest probability of benefiting from LoDO. I'm not sure if I can get there, but I'm willing to try. I think the recommendations from that paper have a decent amount of scientific support and are worth exploring. I'm searching for ways to get closer to that LoDO condition to see if it makes a difference in my light lagers.

Lodo has made every single style we've tried it on significantly better, from pale ale to rauchbier to Hefeweizen to dunkel and onwards.

I'm planning on switching gears and spending the summer brewing Lodo British ales since my warm ground water makes it harder to chill low enough for lager.

I understand why some people have expressed the sentiment that Lodo is only good for light lagers, because to suggest otherwise has some serious implications not only for homebrewers but also for the entire craft beer industry. I think it's best if people try Lodo for themselves on their favorite styles to see if it's what's right for them. All I can say for myself is that no matter the style of beer, I will always choose clear, strong, and fresh malt flavors over muted, muddy, and stale malt flavors.

 

[BrunDog]

Yeah it doesn't jive for me that it would be appropriate for some styles and not all styles. This is not a hops or roast malt question, it's an oxidation question, which applies to all compounds, independent of style.

I brewed a repeat pale ale today... And the whole time I realized how many parts of the process that would need to be refined to accommodate LODO. This would not be easy!! But I will do the tests!

 

[govner1]

I shared this information with my local homebrew guru and brewery consultant. Here is his feedback:
" Wow, how to respond. Can you imagine trying to teach this to everyone. I guess this is why we use so many specialty malts in our recipes to make up what we loose from the base malts due to the oxygen present in our brewing techniques. I can see a whole series of new problems this creates for home brewers starting to try these processes, also brew day just grew by 2 extra hours per batch. This has come up before and I think my conclusion for the home brew world is; we are talking about such a small amount of oxygen that is so hard to control that in the end we just ignore it and find ways to get our flavors back using specialty malts and some of the techniques I talked about the other night with mash temp control. I dont think it is realistic or practical to teach this, however, I think all advanced brewers should know this and understand this effect of oxygen on wort production.
I might play with the idea in the future to see if the subtle differences in malt character is worth all the xtra work.
I think it was Randy Mosher that said " making really good beer is easy to do, understanding it is nearly impossible" or something similar to that.

FYI;The Campden tablets sold in the homebrew shops today are Potassium metabisulfite not sodium."

 

[techbrau]

Awakening your understanding of oxygen in brewing is a lot like when Neo chose the red pill over the blue pill in The Matrix. So I agree with you that these methods are not for everyone.

We debated for a long time about whether or not to open this Pandora' Box to the community. It is clearly a very controversial issue and we did not want to attempt to force everyone to conform to our practices. In the end, we decided to release the information and let people decide for themselves. The reason is because there is a glass ceiling limiting how good your beer can possibly be if you pay no mind to oxygen. We didn't discover the basic science behind this fact, and it's been known in professional circles for decades. For whatever reason, homebrewers (and craft brewers) have completely ignored it. What we did is come up with a method for oxygen control that is suitable for homebrewers and guarantees that you will achieve the low oxygen flavor, provided you follow our procedure exactly.

Taking the red pill is where advanced homebrewing begins.

 

[The_Bishop]

And that is where you piss everyone off and shut down reasonable discourse on the subject because you're getting on the 'holier-than-thou, we have the secret to the *best* beer ever' horse again.

 

[techbrau]

It's not a secret.

We gave you the information freely with no expectation of any kind of reward. We're not asking for donations, we're not marketing books, t-shirts, brewing equipment, software, or any products of any sort. We don't put ads on our website or forum, and we're not running a podcast full of commercials. We put the information out there in the open for whoever wants to give it a try.

A dozen people worked together for nearly a year to put together the information in the pdf, which was freely given to you and everyone else on a silver platter. If the suggestion that said information will improve your beer pisses you off, that's your problem.

Nobody is forcing you to change the way you brew. Nobody forced you to read the pdf, to read this thread, to post in this thread.

As far as Lodo goes, we gave you the tools you need to do it if you so choose. You have the power to make your own choices. Do it or don't do it. I don't care how you brew.

 

[ncbrewer]

techbrau: Thanks for putting this information out, and welcome to HomeBrew Talk. This may be a problem we weren't aware of, and the solution seems to be somewhat inconvenient - An Inconvenient Truth.

 

[ajdelange]

For whatever reason, homebrewers (and craft brewers) have completely ignored it.

That's not entirely true. Some of us were aware of it and I think I mentioned that Sean Franklin at Rooster's in Harrogate was trying to do it way back when, well when he was in Harrogate.

But that's not really why I am responding but rather to appeal to you not to let the sore heads get to you. Please continue to publish what you have found and experienced and if you can't entirely contain your enthusiasm - well we understand that (or some of us do). This isn't the JASBC and we understand that. It's not hard to tell who is sincerely interested in getting at the truth and who is interested in making noise. Best to ignore the latter.

 

[GotPushrods]

Wow... read a lot on many forums now. I guess I don't quite get the nasty snaps at people who are simply asking for triangle test results. (No, not everyone here is nasty, many are quite polite, but this is being discussed on a number of forums right now). I understand that not everyone comes from a scientific or academia background, but it's just common sense to perform a test that determines if it actually makes a difference in the finished beer. I think we can all agree that's the whole point to this.

Anyone who thinks you can say "yeah I really noticed a difference" is kidding themselves. And I don't care about the smell of the wort or a DO reading at some point in the process. FINISHED BEER ASSESSMENT. I just can't believe so many people have spent so much time on this and have yet to perform triangle tests. If it really is working, then the triangle will confirm this. (Of course I'd like to see at least a dozen triangles with about 20+ tasters each) When you purposely make a paper look all "science-y" with subjective claims (without many numbers or graphs in it), then pepper a few references at the end that don't necessarily backup the exact process... I'm sorry it's just not a scientific paper. Even if I agree with the basic premise.

Now before I get my head bit off... I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here. I probably take more effort to reduce O2 throughout the process than many people, I am well aware of it's implication in my own brewing. Especially shelf life (that's what led me down the road). I think if this were presented as a subjective internet post and just asked for feedback there would be a lot less bickering. Maybe it's a language barrier thing, I dunno, but the German Brewing people are completely misunderstanding the critiques to this and getting their panties in a twist.

 

[The_Bishop]

I'd like to clarify my earlier statement.

What strikes me as 'wrong' is how you phrased your comment, "The reason is because there is a glass ceiling limiting how good your beer can possibly be if you pay no mind to oxygen."

This implies that everyone else is 'doing it wrong.' It comes across as elitist and implies that the many fine homebrewers here with years of experience don't know what the hell they're doing and that anyone who doesn't mash according to your steps must, by extension, ignore oxygen uptake anywhere else in the process. I can assure you, this is not the case.

Saying things like, "Taking the red pill is where advanced homebrewing begins." imples that everyone else who doesn't follow "our procedure exactly" is doing it wrong and isn't an 'advanced homebrewer.' This attitude doesn't encourage discussion.

You want to be taken seriously? Get off your high horse. Brew a beer using your 'procedure', all the way to completion. Then have it sampled by impartial judges and see what the feedback is. As had been said several times in this thread alone, the low oxygen steps you are taking may not mean much of a difference when you get to a finished product.

 

[techbrau]

That's not entirely true. Some of us were aware of it and I think I mentioned that Sean Franklin at Rooster's in Harrogate was trying to do it way back when, well when he was in Harrogate.

But that's not really why I am responding but rather to appeal to you not to let the sore heads get to you. Please continue to publish what you have found and experienced and if you can't entirely contain your enthusiasm - well we understand that (or some of us do). This isn't the JASBC and we understand that. It's not hard to tell who is sincerely interested in getting at the truth and who is interested in making noise. Best to ignore the latter.

Thanks for the kind words AJ. We do plan to continue publishing further work on the German Brewing website.

 

[Bilsch]

Being a fairly recent convert to the LODO method I see both sides of this issue pretty well. The impasse comes because none of the authors of the paper are willing to make a batch of oxidized beer, and have it tested, simply to prove that there is something to the LODO method. And why should they? As was mentioned above, there is absolutely nothing in it for them to prove it to the non-believers. Besides maybe the joy of dumping the rest of the test batch down the drain.

Shortly after finding the GBF forum, and starting down the LODO path.. the members warned me that I should drink up whatever beer was in the pipeline before my first LODO batch was done. The red pill analogy is spot on. Not only does it ruin the palate for your own experiments in oxidized malt bitterness, suddenly there is a LOT of craft beer you can no longer force yourself to swallow. Once you’ve done it there is no way back to drinking the past.

And finally, I just don’t understand why this is all has to be so hard. Do the LODO minimash experiment. Its a couple hours out of your life and a few bucks to see for yourself. Use your own taste buds and your own nose. Shouldn’t you trust that more than some strangers with three cups in their hands?

 

[ajdelange]

No problem with anything you said until:

Shouldn’t you trust that more than some strangers with three cups in their hands?

No. You really cannot trust yourself because of cognitive bias and that is exactly why we have triangle tests and double blind ones at that (remember Kluge Hans). This is, of course, more important to a commercial operator than a home brewer because we could argue that a home brewer who thinks he has found brewing nirvana will enjoy his beer more henceforth and shouldn't be disillusioned by the likes of us with our significance tables.

See #18 for my tale of professional brewers and BJCP Master judges tasting things that were not there because of cognitive bias.

 

[Bilsch]

No problem with anything you said until:

No. You really cannot trust yourself because of cognitive bias and that is exactly why we have triangle tests and double blind ones at that (remember Kluge Hans). This is, of course, more important to a commercial operator than a home brewer because we could argue that a home brewer who thinks he has found brewing nirvana will enjoy his beer more henceforth and shouldn't be disillusioned by the likes of us with our significance tables.

I understand the science behind that but on the other hand, with all due respect, no one can decide what I like better then I can. In 31 years of brewing many many things have been tried in an effort to improve my brewing process. Some had a positive effect, some just the opposite. Regardless where I read about about any new and improved process, they are subject to scrutiny until it passes the taste test. Sadly though few new methods actually work as advertised. However if they do improve the process then it's adopted, if not move on.

So it seems, for those who have not tried LODO, there are two paths forward.
1) Try it for yourself or
2) Wait until someone else does it, has it properly judged and then recommends to you what you should do.

 

[govner1]

Awakening your understanding of oxygen in brewing is a lot like when Neo chose the red pill over the blue pill in The Matrix. So I agree with you that these methods are not for everyone.

We debated for a long time about whether or not to open this Pandora' Box to the community. It is clearly a very controversial issue and we did not want to attempt to force everyone to conform to our practices. In the end, we decided to release the information and let people decide for themselves. The reason is because there is a glass ceiling limiting how good your beer can possibly be if you pay no mind to oxygen. We didn't discover the basic science behind this fact, and it's been known in professional circles for decades. For whatever reason, homebrewers (and craft brewers) have completely ignored it. What we did is come up with a method for oxygen control that is suitable for homebrewers and guarantees that you will achieve the low oxygen flavor, provided you follow our procedure exactly.

Taking the red pill is where advanced homebrewing begins.

You can always tell a German but you can't tell him much!

 

[ajdelange]

I understand the science behind that but on the other hand, with all due respect, no one can decide what I like better then I can.

True but I think the guys here are saying they want some assurance that more than the placebo effect is at work here. I cannot honestly say that I personally would want to be undeceived or not in a case where I thought I was making better beer. I guess, being the geeky science type I am I would especially as part of the joy of brewing for me is sharing what I hope is the best beer I can make with others.

 

[The_Bishop]

AJ said it better than I did. Sometimes I get too snarky for my own good.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

I feel like I am in a Religious forum where the theology was just turned upside down.

Anyways, interesting stuff. Keep up the discussion. I'm not sure I can implement everything recommended, but it makes me realize how much oxygen I am introducing during my process. Maybe focusing on what I can do easily now will make a BETTER beer, but not the BEST beer that is the focus here.

 

[techbrau]

Full disclosure, I actually am a real scientist who authors real research papers for my day job.

The change I've been seeing in the homebrewing community in the past few years worries me. It's getting to the point where you can't talk about anything without having people scream at you for a triangle test (as if they gave you a grant to fund your research). How do you know anybody actually did a triangle test and didn't just make the numbers up?

The real problem is this though: If you want to have real, meaningful results then you need to be a lot more rigorous than the homebrewing "experiments" I've seen published online. You need to have a REAL peer review system in place with qualified reviewers (that means PhD).

Case in point, a well known homebrew blogger published an experiment today which compared beers fermented in plastic vs glass to see if oxygen diffusion through the plastic was a problem. Except he didn't measure oxygen ingress anywhere. I am 99% certain that whatever differences may have existed in the DO levels between the beers in the fermenter were completely trumped by oxygen trapped in the keg headspace when he racked. Of course, he didn't measure the dissolved oxygen in the beer pre-racking, he didn't measure how much headspace there was in the kegs or how well they were purged, and he didn't measure DO levels in the kegged beer which would tell him how much oxygen he actually picked up just from racking. How can he compare oxygen uptake in a plastic vs. glass fermenter if he's going to butcher the whole experiment by massively oxidizing BOTH batches when racking to kegs? A single shotglass worth of air trapped in the keg contains enough oxygen to raise the DO level of the entire batch by 0.22 ppm (commercial standards are below 0.1 ppm). It is EXTREMELY difficult to purge bottles or kegs that well, and at the commercial scale bottles are often vacuum purged 2 to 3 times before filling in order to hit this DO target. These are the kind of experimental flaws that a real peer review process reveals, and papers flawed to that degree are usually rejected from publication. But because he calculated some p-values and posted some data it appears to be "science-y" enough for laypeople with no actual scientific training to accept it. "Sloppy citizen science" experiments ruined by poor process control are the real pseudo science, not the pdf we published. We never claimed to be doing original research, and we justified the most critical aspects of our process with citations to textbooks containing references to real peer reviewed publications. What we posted amounts to a recipe and some process suggestions. We didn't include triangle tests because we wanted people to actually try it for themselves, instead of just taking our word for it.

If you want the discourse in the homebrew community to be driven by hard science, that's fine. Just realize that the standards are going to have to be far higher than they currently are for all of the triangle testing to mean anything at all. At that point, we might as well all start submitting to JASBC.

If that sounds like too much, then consider relying on your own experience and your own tastebuds. Give yourself triangle tests - that's a great way to prove to yourself that process or ingredient differences on your system are meaningful to your palette, as long as you fully understand where you did and didn't sufficiently control your process. But please don't accept anything that any random person posts on the Internet as gospel just because they included some data. You don't know how well their process was controlled, you don't know how well the palettes of the tasters on the panel match your own, and you don't know if the data was just completely made up (I'm not specifically accusing anyone of making up data. But as triangle testing catches on more widely it is bound to become a concern).

 

[The_Bishop]

You cannot 'triangle test' yourself. You know what the testing parameters are, and are subject to confirmation bias.

Also, nice inclusion of a slap towards Brulosopher. You are not understanding the point of his experimentation, which is to see if there was a discernable difference *to tasters* in the finished product fermented in two different vessels, not a direct measurement of DO in the final product. The fact that it's not 'peer reviewed' by PhD wielding brewing scientists does not take anything away from the results. In fact, Brulosopher states many times on his site that these are simple tests to test specific parameters and not to be held as some sort of game changer for brewing.

I'd also like to point out that while your information is interesting, beer (and other fermentable beverages) have been made for long before there were DO meters, or many of the other items we have access to today. I believe that you are getting a bit hung up on minutiae, in a search for 'perfection' in eliminating O2 in the process prior to boiling. The problem with that is what may be perfect to you may not be to someone else, and the parameter you are trying to change may not translate into an improvement all the way out in the finished product.

In regard to: "But please don't accept anything that any random person posts on the Internet as gospel just because they included some data. You don't know how well their process was controlled, you don't know how well the palettes of the tasters on the panel match your own, and you don't know if the data was just completely made up."

Yet here you are, asking everyone to do that very thing with your 'paper'. In fact, some folks have poked holes in your process. You have provided no 'peer review.' You've provided no evidence that your process produces a better final product than what thousands of brewers have done before. Your test mash 'experiment' doesn't only alter *one* variable. You are altering the mineral profile and the chemical makeup of the mash water, which could have other ramifications in the mashing process which could be causing some of the results you claim, not the 'oxygen scrubbing' of the sodium metabisulfite. A difference in wort may not translate to a discernable difference in the finished beer.

Nobody has asked for 'hard science.' This is beer, it's as much 'art' as it is 'science.'

I'm all for advancing knowledge in *any* field. I think your interpretation of the information you picked up from the Kunze book is worthy of consideration, and will result in me trying to find ways to minimize O2 ingress pre-ferment, but I don't think I'll be taking at as far as some of the advocates on the german brewing site have.

The claims that 'All other beers are garbage' in comparison strikes me as very, very far-fetched, bordering on hyperbole. (link)

I also take issue with following statement from your paper: "Simply put, you cannot make a proper Helles without employing a low oxygen brewing process."

I'm pretty sure that way back in 1894 when Spaten Brewery in Munich first brewed the beer, they didn't use your LODO process. If you want to be completely pedantic about it, your take on the beer is not 'to style.'