Interesting German Brewing PDF

[rabeb25]

I think you guys are smoking something funny if you think a possible MAX concentration of 25ppm sodium is the magic bullet. Dose the beer in your glass with 25ppm sodium. Does that do it for you?

 

[ajdelange]

Interesting. I've seen ascorbic acid advocated as a means of keeping beer in the reduced state but with that always seems to come the caveat that ascorbic acid, once oxidized (i.e. after it has reduced something), is now an oxidizing agent so that some metabite is usually used along with it. No chapter and verse here, just a recollection.

 

[techbrau]

AJ, there is a lot of literature out there regarding ascorbic acid for fighting oxygen on both the hot side and cold side.

The biggest problem with it seems to be that upon doing its job it forms dehydroascorbic acid, which becomes an extremely potent oxidizer in the presence of trace amounts of metals like copper and iron (fractions of a ppm)

 

[brewfun]

but with that always seems to come the caveat that ascorbic acid, once oxidized (i.e. after it has reduced something), is now an oxidizing agent so that some metabite is usually used along with it.

That's a new one for me, I'll have to look it up, too.

In this case, Bamforth is recommending it in the mash, not in packaging. I recall the early addition doesn't impact shelf stability.

 

[techbrau]

There has been a lot of back and forth over what real German brewers do. I'm not claiming that they use sulfites, but many of them have other (primarily mechanical) ways of preventing oxygen ingress. I think that is important to remember that many German beers do NOT have the special, elusive flavor so I would take anything a German brewer tells you with a grain of salt unless they work at Augustiner.

The oxidizing reactions happen extraordinarily fast. Look on page 234 of Kunze and you can see chemiluminescence detection-based measurement of oxidative reactions in the mash. It begins instantly at dough-in, reaching peak activity within 1-2 minutes, and the show is nearly over after 4-5 minutes. Note how nitrogen gassed grist and water practically eliminate the oxidative reactions.

Fix postulated that it takes just over 1 ppm DO in the hot mash/wort to cause irreversible damage. Our anecdotal experience has jived with this - when I got cocky and insufficiently preboiled my water (heated just to 212 F then cooled) added the sulfites immediately before dough-in, I measured my DO levels between 1-2 ppm. Within 10-15 minutes the sulfites had brought the DO back down to a fraction of a ppm, but the wort (and beer) ended up lacking the delicate malt flavor. As soon as I wised up to this and made sure to confirm that the strike water DO was under 0.5 ppm before I attempted to dough-in, the elusive delicate flavor was back.

I am running some experiments now which use increased sulfite dosage levels as an alternative to preboiling the strike water. The problem there is that unless you have a DO meter, you have no way to know if you've waited long enough for the sulfites to do their job and make it safe to dough-in. For somebody without a DO meter, preboiling with rapid chilling before adding the sulfites is much more foolproof.

Finally, it needs to be emphasized that hot side control of oxygen is only half the battle. A lot of people debating our paper right now seem to completely miss this boat. Even if you execute perfectly on the hot side, it was our experience that as little as 0.3-0.4 ppm DO in the final beer with cause the delicate malt and hop flavors to fade within a matter of weeks at 38 F. With 0.8 ppm DO, the flavors are gone in less than a week. The standard homebrew methodology of fermenting out the beer in the primary and then racking it to a CO2 purged keg will pick up in the neighborhood of 1 ppm DO (measure the DO level of some of your kegged beer if you don't believe me - just make sure to keep CO2 bubbles off of the membrane in order to get an accurate reading). A single shotglass worth of air, if trapped in the keg, contains enough oxygen to raise the DO level of a 5 gallon batch of beer by over 0.2 ppm. You can't purge a keg or bottle well enough unless you're repeatedly pulling a vacuum and then then pressurizing with N2 or CO2. Racking the beer with 1-2% remaining fermentable extract into a keg with nearly zero headspace (you need to cut the gas dip tube shorter to do this safely) and then carbonating the beer in the keg with the aid of a spunding valve was the easiest and best method of cold-side oxygen control that we found.

Getting a DO meter was an eye-opening experience for me. Henry's law is a real bitch. 5 gallons of degassed water just sitting open in a kettle will absorb 1 ppm DO from the atmosphere if you so much as look at it wrong. I have an inkling that commercial systems may not need to be as careful as us, because our surface area to volume ratios are huge compared to theirs. This may explain why some of them think our methods are overkill.

Speaking of huge surface area to volume ratios and the amazing speed at which Henry's law forces oxygen into oxygen-poor liquids, I have some new theories about why so many people seem to be able to get away without aerating their wort when pitching yeast.

 

[The_Bishop]

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:

 

[ajdelange]

I think you guys are smoking something funny if you think a possible MAX concentration of 25ppm sodium is the magic bullet. Dose the beer in your glass with 25ppm sodium. Does that do it for you?

This is something I don't understand. The Water book, for example, advises brewers to keep potassium additions to below 10 mg/L while at the same time acknowledging that many beers contain (from the barley) as much a 500 mg/L (in fact some contain almost a gram). I don't see how adding 20 mg/L to your water as a source of, say, chloride, is going to be problematical but I haven't tried it. The situation is similar, if not so dramatic, with sodium and yet the lore allows us greater flexibility in how much sodium we can add. Something doesn't compute here.

 

[techbrau]

This is something I don't understand. The Water book, for example, advises brewers to keep potassium additions to below 10 mg/L while at the same time acknowledging that many beers contain (from the barley) as much a 500 mg/L (in fact some contain almost a gram). I don't see how adding 20 mg/L to your water as a source of, say, chloride, is going to be problematical but I haven't tried it. The situation is similar, if not so dramatic, with sodium and yet the lore allows us greater flexibility in how much sodium we can add. Something doesn't compute here.

AJ, I think the point is that a lot of people are making the claim that the additional 24 ppm of sodium added to the water from the SMB dose recommended by the paper (it's actually 24 ppm if you do no-sparge, and less if you do sparge since the sparge water gets a smaller dose) is what's responsible for the perceived difference in flavor.

Sodium doesn't make the wort or beer lighter in color by 1-2 SRM, and 24 ppm isn't going to dramatically change the flavor profile especially if you're starting from RO water like most of us are. Low oxygen isn't a small difference. Comparing the malt character of regular beer vs. low oxygen beer is like comparing the hop aroma of an IPA that hasn't been dry hopped vs. one that has been. If anyone is concerned that the sodium is the culprit, I would suggest that they do the mini-mash and add 24 ppm extra sodium to the control mash.

We actually started off using potassium metabisulfite rather than sodium metabisulfite and got the same results. We ended up changing to sodium metabisulfite because Narziss advises against potassium levels in excess of 10 ppm in the brewing water, but to be honest with you we didn't have any problems with k-meta.

 

[mabrungard]

Look on page 234 of Kunze and you can see chemiluminescence detection-based measurement of oxidative reactions in the mash.

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.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

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.

 

[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.