Interesting German Brewing PDF

wps-hbt
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
rabeb25 said:
You will rethink that after you realize all the "exbeeriments" are tainted by oxidized beer...


Right we would need phd's and undergrads to setup the proper testing and all the paperwork needed. That's a lot of work to do to try and convince a bunch of people on the internet. At the end of the day, you either try it or you don't, but it doesn't change the fact that I enjoy glorious mug after mug of beautiful un-oxidized beer at my house.

This is made from the recipe in the paper, and its nothing short of mind blowing. (No orange oxidation tint in this beer)
Click to expand...

If you're not willing to put in the work to prove your results have a statistically significant impact on taste/aroma all you have is biased conjecture/data.
 
aprichman said:
Not to be disrespectful, but I don't think you really understand what you are talking about. A difference test will allow you to determine if two beers are different. In this case you would brew 2 beers on the same setup with the same ingredients, same fermentation temperatures, etc. One would be brewed with the techniques described here, the other would be brewed without worrying about HSA. A difference test (either a duo-trio or a triangle test) would allow you to determine if a group could tell the difference between the two beers.

This would at least attempt to evaluate your claims that these techniques matter.

Not sure why you are talking about multiple tests needing to be run, unless you want to start running ANOVA tests.
Click to expand...
The problem is the total number of variables involved in brewing. It is almost impossible to keep all of them exactly the same, except for the variable(s) under test. Replicating the brews randomizes the uncontrolled variables. The more replicates, the more confidence you have that the observed difference is due to the variable(s) of interest.

Brew on :mug:
 
aprichman said:
If you're not willing to put in the work to prove your results have a statistically significant impact on taste/aroma all you have is biased conjecture/data.
Click to expand...


I don't have to prove anything to anyone except myself. Try it or don't, it matters not to me. If its my biased conjecture/data that is causing this amazing experience..... lucky me!
 
doug293cz said:
The problem is the total number of variables involved in brewing. It is almost impossible to keep all of them exactly the same, except for the variable(s) under test. Replicating the brews randomizes the uncontrolled variables. The more replicates, the more confidence you have that the observed difference is due to the variable(s) of interest.

Brew on :mug:
Click to expand...

I think it should go without saying that you need to have good experimental technique, trying to control any variables that you can. That being said nothing in the real world is going to be perfect and there are particular variables in a given experiment that tend to be of greater importance.

If it was required that every variable in every experiment was perfectly matched then no experiment would ever go forward. It's a poor and lazy excuse in the world of science.

You run the experiment and if it needs to be improved or reevaluated to account for an uncontrolled variable then you run it again.

In this case I think the author(s?) are overcomplicating it. Simply brewing a beer with their LO techniques and without their LO techniques and doing difference testing on them with a panel of beer drinkers / judges would go a HUGE way to begin validating these claims.

Until then there is no way that they are capable of saying without bias that there is a difference that other people or even themselves can taste or perceive.
 
rabeb25 said:
I don't have to prove anything to anyone except myself. Try it or don't, it matters not to me. If its my biased conjecture/data that is causing this amazing experience..... lucky me!
Click to expand...

If you don't want to put in a small amount of work to prove your methods have any significant impact on beer then maybe you should stop making definitive claims like

all the "exbeeriments" are tainted by oxidized beer
 
We have done all the sensory testing we needed to prove the method. How about you try the method and do some testing? Since your claims are just as "biased" as mine.
Last time I checked you can't sensor what claims anyone makes either, that may prove to be a maddening exercise for you. ;)
So back on you, prove my exbeeriment claims are false!
It's great how this works, isn't it. Lol.
 
rabeb25 said:
We have done all the sensory testing we needed to prove the method. How about you try the method and do some testing? Since your claims are just as "biased" as mine.
Last time I checked you can't sensor what claims anyone makes either, that may prove to be a maddening exercise for you. ;)
So back on you, prove my exbeeriment claims are false!
It's great how this works, isn't it. Lol.
Click to expand...

You have a serious misunderstanding about how the scientific method works. You have only done enough to convince yourself. You may be right or wrong, but you haven't followed a methodology sufficient to convince others. Nothing you can say will change that. You have to do the work according to accepted standards.

I (and I'm sure many others) get put off by people who push an idea with religious fervor while saying "I don't need to provide proof, you do."

Even if the method is shown thru appropriate testing to result in a perceptible difference in the finished beer, it is still up to individual brewers to decide if the difference is enough to warrant the extra work. Personally, I won't bother doing any testing myself without more convincing evidence from blind tastings. And, that's the correct decision for me. Other's can decide for themselves if they want to experiment with this or not, and that will be the correct decision for them.

Brew on :mug:
 
aprichman said:
Not to be disrespectful, but I don't think you really understand what you are talking about. A difference test will allow you to determine if two beers are different. In this case you would brew 2 beers on the same setup with the same ingredients, same fermentation temperatures, etc. One would be brewed with the techniques described here, the other would be brewed without worrying about HSA. A difference test (either a duo-trio or a triangle test) would allow you to determine if a group could tell the difference between the two beers.

This would at least attempt to evaluate your claims that these techniques matter.

Not sure why you are talking about multiple tests needing to be run, unless you want to start running ANOVA tests.
Click to expand...

You are correct that a difference test will allow you to determine if two beers are different. However, at a homebrew level, consistency across batches is so difficult to achieve that simply comparing one batch brewed with each method can't prove that the variable deliberately changed in brewing the beers is responsible for that difference. You need to prove that the variation across multiple batches of beers is significantly greater between the different groups than it is within the different groups. I wouldn't expect Brulosopher to do this with his experiments, because they are meant to be fun and interesting (not for a scientific journal) and I'm sure he wouldn't want to be stuck with 1000's of litres of beer each time he ran an experiment! Also, they are good enough to give an indication as to whether a difference is likely or not.

I also wouldn't expect the authors of the paper to run these experiments - they've presented information freely for anyone to try (or not) as they wish. If you don't want to use the method until someone has done some testing, then wait a few months and I'm sure Brulosopher (or Kai or someone else) will give you an answer!

Oh, and it's not MY claim that these techniques matter. I've only recently tried the method (fortunately it was very easy to adapt to on my system and only added about 30mins to my brew day). The beers aren't finished yet so I can't say if it makes a difference.
 
rabeb25 said:
If I am not mistaken you didn't spund it, you fined it, and you dry hopped it.. correct? If so, your post needs a disclaimer, since you didn't follow our method. In our findings if you did not spund and you fined, and/or you dryhopped your malt flavor is mostly gone already, and the rest will be gone probably within the next week or so.

I learned that first hand.
Click to expand...

I *knew* this would be the response. "You didn't follow our bible/very rigid set of guidelines that more or less preclude you from brewing anything that isn't a helles!"

I didn't spund it. I wasn't investing any $$ in someone else's claims.

Yes, I fined it. I like clear beer that I don't have to wait 30+ days for.

Yes, I dry hopped it. It's a hoppy pale ale/borderline IPA. It needs dry hopping. The dry hopping was done in the keg. The hops were placed in the keg and purged with CO2 several times prior to closed transfer of the fined beer via the liquid out line.

The malt flavor is present, I assure you. It will be there until the keg kicks. It may not be that 'special, elusive' flavor you guys keep going on about, but it works for me. I like my beer, my friends like my beer, and the ribbons I've been collecting say that the judges at the competitions like my beer, too.

In the end, that's enough. I tried your 'process' as far as my equipment and beer requirements would let me. I see no need to alter my brewing, as I see no appreciable difference in the finished product.
 
If you think it was easy, wouldn't you think every joe homebrewer would be able to achieve it and we wouldn't be coming in saying the world is indeed round.
So for record keeping you followed the hot(brew side) but didn't follow any cold side. So sorry it didn't work out for you and nice to see that following half of the paper netted you an improvement! Cheers.
 
rabeb25 said:
If you think it was easy, wouldn't you think every joe homebrewer would be able to achieve it and we wouldn't be coming in saying the world is indeed round.
So for record keeping you followed the hot(brew side) but didn't follow any cold side. So sorry it didn't work out for you and nice to see that following half of the paper netted you an improvement! Cheers.
Click to expand...

@The_Bishop specifically said "I see no need to alter my brewing, as I see no appreciable difference in the finished product." It appears you need to work on your reading comprehension. Mistakes like that do not bolster your credibility.

Brew on :mug:
 
OH NO NOT MY HBT CREDIBILITY! LOL. That's spoken like I care what you think about me. Heh, in all honesty. He spoke about malt flavor that is present now. So that would be an improvement. Hey that's ok! Some folks really bent out of shape about beer, it's supposed to be fun remember!?!!
 
rabeb25 said:
OH NO NOT MY HBT CREDIBILITY! LOL. That's spoken like I care what you think about me. Heh, in all honesty. He spoke about malt flavor that is present now. So that would be an improvement. Hey that's ok! Some folks really bent out of shape about beer, it's supposed to be fun remember!?!!
Click to expand...
He did not say that the presence of malt flavor was a new thing in this beer compared to previous beers. You made an unsupportable inference.

Brew on :mug:
 
rabeb25 said:
You know what Doug you are so right( that's what you want to hear, right?). I dedicate this mug of delicious Lodo kellerbier to you! Prost!
View attachment 357242
Click to expand...

It does look very tempting, as have the other beers of which you posted pictures. I have no doubts that they are all quite tasty.

Brew on :mug:
 
I sure hope that someone tries this method that can report additional sets of results. So far The_Bishop says there's no difference (at least according to my reading comprehension skills). I think TexasWine has a LODO batch going.

I really am interested in the outcome. But I really don't like the zealot tone that some of the LODO posters have. If someone who hasn't drunk the koolaid shows some benefits, then I may give it a try.
 
PlinyTheMiddleAged said:
I sure hope that someone tries this method that can report additional sets of results. So far The_Bishop says there's no difference (at least according to my reading comprehension skills). I think TexasWine has a LODO batch going.

I really am interested in the outcome. But I really don't like the zealot tone that some of the LODO posters have. If someone who hasn't drunk the koolaid shows some benefits, then I may give it a try.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have my attempt at one going. A marzen. Only blunder so far was not being able to chill to fermenting temp before pitching. Another caveat, I BIAB, which some low DO proponents view as suboptimal. To compensate I was super duper careful when pulling the bag, only lifting it fractions of an inch with each tug, and never letting it drip back into the wort. Should be racking to the spunding keg tomorrow or Sunday to finish out.

Anybody in Houston want to swing by my house and taste it once it's done? Just shoot me a PM with your email address and I'll send out a notice when it's time to imbibe. I live in the Timbergrove area near Ella and 11th. I'll see if any of the local professional brewers want to have a swig too, just to make it really official.
 
rabeb25 said:
Anything you can get here from Germany thats not been abused, shoot for it in a can.. Bitburger, Konig, etc. Jarhundert is my personal favorite, but its usually abused( and in bottle only).
Click to expand...

Drinking a Jarhundert right now (bottled)... I have to say, it is a very nice beer. Very crisp and clean lager, nice color, great head. I can't say it is full of much flavor, however (as I would not expect a lager to). Was it "abused"? Perhaps. But my palette finds it hard to grasp this elusive flavor. That said, I would gladly drink a couple of mugs of this on a warm day.
 
The_Bishop said:
I *knew* this would be the response. "You didn't follow our bible/very rigid set of guidelines that more or less preclude you from brewing anything that isn't a helles!"

I didn't spund it. I wasn't investing any $$ in someone else's claims.

Yes, I fined it. I like clear beer that I don't have to wait 30+ days for.

Yes, I dry hopped it. It's a hoppy pale ale/borderline IPA. It needs dry hopping. The dry hopping was done in the keg. The hops were placed in the keg and purged with CO2 several times prior to closed transfer of the fined beer via the liquid out line.

The malt flavor is present, I assure you. It will be there until the keg kicks. It may not be that 'special, elusive' flavor you guys keep going on about, but it works for me. I like my beer, my friends like my beer, and the ribbons I've been collecting say that the judges at the competitions like my beer, too.

In the end, that's enough. I tried your 'process' as far as my equipment and beer requirements would let me. I see no need to alter my brewing, as I see no appreciable difference in the finished product.
Click to expand...

So you brewed a batch of beer. Didn't follow the guidelines in the paper, didn't see a difference from your normal brew, and deduct that the paper results result in no difference?
 
doug293cz said:
The problem is the total number of variables involved in brewing. It is almost impossible to keep all of them exactly the same, except for the variable(s) under test. Replicating the brews randomizes the uncontrolled variables. The more replicates, the more confidence you have that the observed difference is due to the variable(s) of interest.

Brew on :mug:
Click to expand...

But that very difficulty--if important--isn't certain to average out over multiple brews. If there truly are that many variables whose control is in question, you'll need more than three brews. And there's no way to know if differences would "randomize" from batch to batch. In fact, there's reason to believe they wouldn't.

I do think there's room here for a real test of taste--not just that people can determine they're different, but that most agree that the nonDO beer is superior.

There are in fact flaws in how Brulosopher evaluates results--and that's not a criticism in general because he's the only guy trying to figure this stuff out in a systematic way, insofar as I know. For that he has my great respect.

However, just because people can distinguish a difference between beers tells us nothing about which is better. My favorite example is this exbeeriment:

http://brulosophy.com/2016/04/04/si...-brudragon-collaboration-exbeeriment-results/

The results were "significant" at p<.001, with 128 tasters. Of those, 66 were able to correctly identify the odd-one-out. But the results are presented as if all those were able to do so as a result of being able to distinguish via flavor, not as a result of luck. In other words, we don't know how many simply guessed right, and how many truly could distinguish between the beers.

[The answer to this is validating tasters to see that they can reliably identify the odd-one-out, repeatedly, and not just once. But I digress...]

Then, there are the results of which one was better: of the 66 who were able to distinguish between them, 33 favored one beer, 26 the other beer, 3 said no difference, and 4 said they were different but had no preference.

So here we have very "significant" results, but there is no clear preferences as to which is better. In other words: there's no real evidence that one is better than the other, just that they're different.

So--if anyone can do a test of DO as relates to quality, not only must they show a difference, but that there's overwhelming agreement that it's better than the old way of doing things.
 
I have three semi-Low D.O. batches in fermenters now.

All recipes I've used before, so I have something to work with.

Kegging soon, and I will let you know.
 
PlinyTheMiddleAged said:
I sure hope that someone tries this method that can report additional sets of results. So far The_Bishop says there's no difference (at least according to my reading comprehension skills). I think TexasWine has a LODO batch going.

I really am interested in the outcome. But I really don't like the zealot tone that some of the LODO posters have. If someone who hasn't drunk the koolaid shows some benefits, then I may give it a try.
Click to expand...

I will be doing a full process LODO APA next weekend. I'll let you know how it turns out. I will then follow up with a re brew of a munich helles I have on tap to see how that compares.

Bishop - I have spent a lot of time reading the lodo stuff on German Brewing forum. I MO you didn't do a LODO beer. There's no problem with that but that is the reason why the poster mentioned treating your results as suspect. The article states that you can't get the required oxygen amount without spunding. Your method of purging with CO2 wouldn't reduce the O2 content anywhere near the levels required for LODO - thus resulting in an oxidised beer. Please don't be offended.

Note I picked up a new spunding valve reasonably cheaply in isolated NZ so would think the cost in US would be minimal.

I'm also currently reading a number of shaken not stirred yeast starter threads where the same arguments crop up regarding burden of proof. All these people are saying is here is a method that they believe creates better beer. Have a go yourself and if you see no difference then there is no loss and go back to your original method.
 
I carried the experimentation on as far as my existing equipment would go, for my own edification. I'm not interested in investing cash into equipment that would be used once, in all likelihood.

For what it's worth, I *did* use their LODO method for the mash. There were some differences in the mash; it seemed to foam less and seemed somewhat less 'fragrant.' I have no scientific evidence at that point on if the wort was 'better' than previous incarnations of that same grain bill; I didn't notice any life-altering difference in the wort flavor at the end of the mash. Granted, I didn't have another batch to directly compare it to at that moment and I'm going off memory.

As far as the remainder of the 'process'... I don't think I have a significant post-ferment O2 problem. My hop-forward beers seem to retain their aroma and flavor just fine in the keg for the life of it, which tends to be about a month or so at my current rate of consumption. Hops are the first thing to go in Post-ferment O2 introduction.

To re-iterate on my kegging process: For this batch, the keg was filled to the very brim (coming out of the lid pressure valve) with SMB/sanitizer solution, then pushed out with CO2. This is the least-wasteful way I know to get as complete as possible O2 purging. The beer was transferred into the keg via a slight CO2 push from the fermenter via the liquid-out line, releasing pressure via the lid pressure relief valve.

Fining was also done with gelatin dissolved in water that was pre-boiled to drive off O2 then cooled to 155 degrees F and dosed with SMB prior to dissolving the gelatin, then dispensing it into the fermenter via a stainless baster to avoid pouring or splashing.

Like I said, I carried it as far as I'm willing. I didn't see enough of a change in the finished beer to make it a standard practice. I picked up a few things, though. I found it a lot easier to dough-in with my BIABasket setup by putting the milled grain into the basket then lowering the basket into the brewing liquor. It had the same effect as underletting the mash, and didn't require any stirring to eliminate doughballs. Oxygenating after pitching yeast doesn't matter one way or the other as far as process goes, so I'll continue to do it post-pitch.

As I said previously: I'm not declaring the who process 'bunk.' I'm stating that I personally didn't see enough of a change or improvement to change my brewing technique.

I think there's a little bit of religious fervor and confirmation bias in the crowd that advocates this stuff, and claiming that you 'cannot brew a helles any other way' and have it turn out well is a bit of hyperbole. I'm reasonable certain that Spaten Brewery, the creators of Helles, didn't have DO meters or employ CO2 flushed grains and mash tuns in 1894.
 
Thanks Bishop. I missed the bit about water purging of keg. The guys did say that you still pick up O2 with that method. It's good that you stepped up and tried the method and reported back.

With regards to your last point the low O2 method has only been used since the 70s or something - ie it's a modenish method.
 
It doesn't really matter what 'method' one suggests or is deemed better etc.

Monitoring dissolved oxygen at various stages in the process and ensuring it doesn't happen above acceptable levels is key for every serious brewmaster.

If people want to stir their mash with a drill or pour the wort from huge height, who really cares? If they like it... Then that's their beer and since I am not under any obligation to drink it, I can see no harm except when they hypothetically *shock* invite me round and expect to consume that stuff. That would indeed worry me, but thankfully the chances of this occurrence is extremely low ;)
 
I'm going to point out a few things:

Edelst0ff said:
It doesn't really matter what 'method' one suggests or is deemed better etc.
Click to expand...

Ok, with you so far.

Edelst0ff said:
Monitoring dissolved oxygen at various stages in the process and ensuring it doesn't happen above acceptable levels is key for every serious brewmaster.
Click to expand...

You're starting to spiral off into DB territory now, with an elitist attitude that if you don't have a DO meter, you're not a 'serious brewmaster'. This is where you guys take a credibility hit by looking down your nose at anyone who won't shell out couple hundred bucks on a DO meter.

Edelst0ff said:
If people want to stir their mash with a drill or pour the wort from huge height, who really cares? If they like it... Then that's their beer and since I am not under any obligation to drink it, I can see no harm except when they hypothetically *shock* invite me round and expect to consume that stuff. That would indeed worry me, but thankfully the chances of this occurrence is extremely low ;)
Click to expand...

And we're completely into DB territory now. I can assure you that I'd never deign to offer you any of my beer that I had the gall to brew without a DO meter and not in accordance with your 'bible'.
 
If I purchased a meter I think it would cost me well over $250 in the long run. It is a valuable tool but I can understand where most homebrewers would say fuct it. To each their own, it's a hobby. I'll offer you all a beer no matter what you think, if you don't like my beer we'll all do shots!
 
Edelst0ff said:
If people want to stir their mash with a drill or pour the wort from huge height, who really cares? If they like it... Then that's their beer and since I am not under any obligation to drink it, I can see no harm except when they hypothetically *shock* invite me round and expect to consume that stuff. That would indeed worry me, but thankfully the chances of this occurrence is extremely low ;)
Click to expand...

With that attitude you probably wouldn't get many invites anyway. You're saying that all other beer other than LODO is undrinkable swill. I can see how others in this thread are annoyed with the condescending comments.
 
The_Bishop said:
I'm going to point out a few things:



Ok, with you so far.



You're starting to spiral off into DB territory now, with an elitist attitude that if you don't have a DO meter, you're not a 'serious brewmaster'. This is where you guys take a credibility hit by looking down your nose at anyone who won't shell out couple hundred bucks on a DO meter.



And we're completely into DB territory now. I can assure you that I'd never deign to offer you any of my beer that I had the gall to brew without a DO meter and not in accordance with your 'bible'.
Click to expand...

I beg your pardon? What are you trying to do here!? Is this an attempt to bully me?
 
Bullying you? No, I'm merely pointing out how you're claiming that anyone who doesn't abide by your LODO process is making undrinkable swill.

I've been around here for a few years. Nowhere near as long as others have. One thing I don't see to much of is the sneering, smarmy BS you folks have been pushing with your LODO process. It pisses me off, quite frankly. I'm too damn old to sit back and not call it like I see it.

It's one thing to invite discussion on a topic and it's quite another to barge in and issue edicts condemning the efforts of other brewers who will not follow your 'process.' It's especially damning when you have no concrete proof that your snake oil actually creates better beer and you have no peer-reviewed documentation that it makes an iota of difference in the finished product. What's truly funny is you claim that it's impossible to make a good Helles without your process, yet I'm pretty sure that Spaten Brewery wasn't screwing around with LODO brewing back in 1894. Do a little studying, as they invented the Helles style.

Running completely contradictory to your precious 'paper' is the fact that millions, if not billions of gallons of truly fantastic beer has been brewed *without* your process. Yet I'm sure you'll dismiss this as we're just a bunch of non-LODO brewing heathens after all.
 
The_Bishop said:
I'm pretty sure that Spaten Brewery wasn't screwing around with LODO brewing back in 1894. Do a little studying, as they invented the Helles style.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Spaten, and all the other big breweries in Germany are equipped for precluding oxygen throughout the brewing process. Why? Because they feel it makes better beer. Progress.
Don't be scared, it's a good thing.
 
Bilsch said:
I'm pretty sure Spaten, and all the other big breweries in Germany are equipped for precluding oxygen throughout the brewing process. Why? Because they feel it makes better beer. Progress.
Don't be scared, it's a good thing.
Click to expand...

Do we get to debate "big" or "brewery" now? Or maybe "German"?

Last time I saw Spaten it was on the shelf in an 84°F MoreBeer warehouse/store. Is that a good example? If not, according to your own beer cult, Spaten sucks and is a waste of time. So is your vaunted "Jahrundert" unless they handled every single part of the cold side perfectly.

And forgive me if I don't see a huge number of so-called "perfect" beers having huge amounts of sulfur added at any part of the process.

But last time I went to Due South Brewery or Cigar City or even the LHBS that has a few taps from those local breweries, they were amazeballs.

Freshness. Don't be scared. It's a good thing. Unless it makes you so myopic over "that one time in Germany", that you lose your sh*T and start slamming people who are trying to understand what SOMEONE ELSE is saying.
 
Magnus314 said:
"that one time in Germany", that you lose your sh*T and start slamming people who are trying to understand what SOMEONE ELSE is saying.
Click to expand...

After reading your thoughtful and well reasoned reply I feel I must apologize for 'losing my ****' the way I did above. What ever was I thinking.
 
mabrungard said:
If the tap water has high temporary hardness, pre-boiling could alter the hardness and alkalinity. However if you are just boiling for a minute to reduce DO, I'm not sure that you will affect the ionic content that much.
Click to expand...

It depends on the actual chemistry of the particular water of course but I have seen hard alkaline water turn milky before it even reaches the boiling point. Further to this in a small volume of water it is really only necessary to bring the water to the boild - not hold it there. The CO2 comes right out and the CaCO3 forms tout suite.
 
Bilsch said:
I'm pretty sure Spaten, and all the other big breweries in Germany are equipped for precluding oxygen throughout the brewing process.
Click to expand...

I'd wager that you're wrong, too. However, like you, I have no proof one way or the other whether they're using a low oxygen process prior to the boil or not. Also, I can say with 99.9% certainty that they were not using your vaunted process in the 1890's.

Bilsch said:
Why? Because they feel it makes better beer. Progress.
Don't be scared, it's a good thing.
Click to expand...

Again, conjecture. Your process costs money, and these are big companies that count every penny. If they're using this process, then they're doing it for shelf stability... Not flavor. So it can sit on a shelf (or ship) for a few months and retain a reasonable level of quality.
 
Bishop,

Control of hot side oxidation is discussed in all text outside of "homebrewing" that I have read. Because you don't want to invest a cost in equipment does not mean you should criticize a method or others research. I would think a great deal of people here are trying to make the best beer they can, not what they can with the cheapest equipment.

Yes, some styles are going to benefit more than others and some styles may have flavors that are expected to be there that are caused by oxidation.

In the end this is a discussion thread about a brewing method, not whether you can be convinced to modify your equipment to try it.

Capture.JPG


Capture2.JPG
 

Similar threads

F
more one dollar german imports
Replies
0
Views
167
fluketamer
F
Zippy123
Taverns/pubs along Danube & Rhine (Budapest to Amsterdam)
Replies
1
Views
196
pvpeacock
pvpeacock
J
Best dry yeast for a German Pils?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Dog House Brew
Dog House Brew
K
Added Boil Hops at End By Accident...
Replies
16
Views
944
KookyBrewsky
K
flipster
Hello from the Bavarian alpine foothills
Replies
14
Views
879
flipster
flipster
InkBird 300

Latest posts

Back
Top