Interesting German Brewing PDF

[Iseneye]

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

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.

 

[Edelst0ff]

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'.

I beg your pardon? What are you trying to do here!? Is this an attempt to bully me?

 

[The_Bishop]

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.

 

[Bilsch]

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.

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.

 

[Magnus314]

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.

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.

 

[Bilsch]

"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.

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.

 

[Magnus314]

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.

Glad to hear it. It's progress. Don't be scared. It's a good thing.

 

[ajdelange]

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.

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.

 

[The_Bishop]

I'm pretty sure Spaten, and all the other big breweries in Germany are equipped for precluding oxygen throughout the brewing process.

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.

Why? Because they feel it makes better beer. Progress.
Don't be scared, it's a good thing.

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.

 

[jddevinn]

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.

 

[mabrungard]

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.

I agree, AJ. I've seen the same result when I brewed with hard and alkaline tap water. I mentioned the boiling since I had seen references that recommended boiling for 15 minutes to effectively remove temp hardness. I'm assuming that they made that recommendation to make it more idiot-proof. Partial alkalinity and hardness reduction probably does occur fairly quickly.

 

[The_Bishop]

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.

You must have missed the part where it says, "possible" and "thought." -

Fig. 4.23 Possible stages in the oxidative breakdown of the major unsaturated fatty acids during mashing... It is thought that the unsaturated trihydroxy-fatty acids...

Those two words indicate that it's a theory. Not fact.

Trust me, my investment in my brewing equipment is anything but cheap! I'm not saying, "Bah, this costs too much!" I'm saying that I didn't perceive any real difference in the finished product during my own experimentation and that for me, it doesn't warrant a change in equipment/technique. I'm not going to start fermenting in corny kegs, so a spunding valve is useless to me.

I know what this thread is about. Unfortunately, it's not an open discussion of a brewing technique. It's almost an argument with religious LODO zealots that want everyone to take what they say as gospel, and if you question them or don't follow their steps *exactly* you're making undrinkable swill. I still say there is more going on here than scrubbing oxygen when you dose the mashing liquor with SMB, and that's possibly the source of the difference in the mash. Their information is incomplete and they're drawing a lot of conclusions from incomplete data.

Daddy always warned me not to be cocksure when data is incomplete. 'Don't make so much stew from one oyster, Peewee,' he always says.

This was good advice in 1958 and it's relevant now.

What they're proposing adds time, cost and waste to an already expensive (in terms of water and power) endeavor with no concrete proof of an actual improvement. Their 'test mash' merely shows that there is a difference in mashing when you dose the water with SMB and that's all it proves without lab work. These differences may or may not translate all the way into an improved finished product, so I tried it as far as I could with my existing equipment and detected no real improvement in the finished product.

 

[jddevinn]

You must have missed the part where it says, "possible" and "thought." -

Fig. 4.23 Possible stages in the oxidative breakdown of the major unsaturated fatty acids during mashing... It is thought that the unsaturated trihydroxy-fatty acids...

Those two words indicate that it's a theory. Not fact.

You are again, looking at two images from a 850 page book.

Trust me, my investment in my brewing equipment is anything but cheap! I'm not saying, "Bah, this costs too much!" I'm saying that I didn't perceive any real difference in the finished product during my own experimentation and that for me, it doesn't warrant a change in equipment/technique. I'm not going to start fermenting in corny kegs, so a spunding valve is useless to me.

I know what this thread is about. Unfortunately, it's not an open discussion of a brewing technique. It's almost an argument with religious LODO zealots that want everyone to take what they say as gospel, and if you question them or don't follow their steps *exactly* you're making undrinkable swill. I still say there is more going on here than scrubbing oxygen when you dose the mashing liquor with SMB, and that's possibly the source of the difference in the mash. Their information is incomplete and they're drawing a lot of conclusions from incomplete data.



This was good advice in 1958 and it's relevant now.

What they're proposing adds time, cost and waste to an already expensive (in terms of water and power) endeavor with no concrete proof of an actual improvement. Their 'test mash' merely shows that there is a difference in mashing when you dose the water with SMB and that's all it proves without lab work. These differences may or may not translate all the way into an improved finished product, so I tried it as far as I could with my existing equipment and detected no real improvement in the finished product.

If you look at the test mash page on the german forum some people have done the mashes with and without the SMB as controls.

I'm not completely sold on the hot side affects but 100% on the cold side oxidation. One fact is that the method being discussed is entirely low oxygen. Fact is the kegging method you used did not follow the outlines set out and allowed above recommended O2 levels. How can you dispute the method if you haven't used it?

I've been trying to reduce the O2 in my cold side process for a while now. Food grade CO2 at 99.9% purity can have .1% air (1000 ppm) or about 30ppm O2. Therefore the CO2 itself may push the beer DO concentration above the recommended. Kunze and other literature state to that if CO2 must be force added use the purest possible. By not naturally carbonating you may have oxidized your beer to the point that the procedures that you did follow do not matter.

I'm making an ESB in the next couple days depending on my schedule. Changes to my normal process will include the hot side recommendations. Cold side as stated is beyond what I want to do right now, I'll finish fermentation in primary, dump trub, dry hop then transfer to secondary and (new to me) naturally carbonate by adding priming sugar. Is this following recommendations exactly? No. Am I going to post results. Yes. If it doesn't have the results discussed and I didn't follow the procedure am I going to call everyone dumb ****s? No.

I've wanted a DO meter for a while and have several eBay alerts set.... I've been primarily focused on packaging O2 uptake and am not sure (relatively cheap) meter "everyone" is using is right for that.

 

[Bilsch]

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.

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.

I'll take that bet. Companies like Krones, Meura, Kunzel, Schulz etc. are making an array of equipment specifically designed to limit or eliminate oxygen from the mashing process. Who are they selling these devices to?

Just because you say it three times loudly doesn't make it a good point. None of the big breweries in Germany, or anywhere else for that matter, are using much 1890's technology for brewing anymore. The Mesopotamians and Sumerians were at it quite a bit earlier. Do we still brew like they did, or have we evolved?

Ok it seems like a bit of a circular argument but.. shelf stability of what, flavor ?

Look we can batter each other about the head all day long as to whether the LoDO process is actually beneficial, however it boils down to this.. You tried it, and deemed it to be snake oil. I tried it and found it to be a revelation. And after 31 years of brewing it was one of the bigger improvements in quality I have experienced. My hope is simply that other brewers will give it a fair evaluation for themselves before being convinced the earth is flat.

 

[The_Bishop]

If it doesn't have the results discussed and I didn't follow the procedure am I going to call everyone dumb ****s?

Kindly show me where I call anyone anything in regards to this process, as opposed to when I called someone out for insulting anyone who isn't using this process by insinuating their beer sucks?

 

[The_Bishop]

My hope is simply that other brewers will give it a fair evaluation for themselves before being convinced the earth is flat.

See? THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. The nose-in-the-air, we're-right-and-you're-all-wrong attitude.

Try to wrap your head around a simple concept: This is not a 'world round'/'world flat' concept. It's not a 'we're right' and 'you're wrong' discussion.

It's supposed to be a discussion about the possible benefits of low dissolved oxygen prior to the boil. But it's hard to hold a rational discussion with a bunch of arrogant @$%^%@ who insist that everyone who isn't on board with their idea is inherently wrong and makes bad beer.

I simply stated that I tried the LODO approach to the extent of the equipment I have on hand. I didn't see a worthwhile improvement in the finished beer that makes the added time and energy expenditure useful. I was immediately told I did it wrong because I deviated from the 'bible' of LODO brewing.

I did a little backtracking, and re-discovered something amusing. Brewfun had actually approached a real live german brewer by the name of Burghard Meyer who, while not completely disagreeing, stated that the precautions you folks are advocating are overkill. He also pointed out that the SMB may be contributing sodium that's altering the mash flavor. He also pointed out that the elimination of copper (etc) is relatively pointless because it's naturally occurring in malt.

His contribution was immediately shot down because he's some nobody that doesn't work at Augustiner. After all, he's only from Research and Teaching Institute in Berlin (VLB), what could he possibly know?

That's sarcasm, in case you didn't pick it up.

 

[Bilsch]

See? THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. The nose-in-the-air, we're-right-and-you're-all-wrong attitude.

Try to wrap your head around a simple concept: This is not a 'world round'/'world flat' concept. It's not a 'we're right' and 'you're wrong' discussion.

Why do you insist in making this confrontational? I have never taken the nose in the air attitude with you or anyone else.
I never felt any of this was about who is better. Its simply about sharing experience and knowledge with fellow brewers. I've seen the before and after of LoDO and it's simply amazing. That's my experience with it and opinion of it and what I am trying to convey.

And on whether it actually works or not, we will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. None of this is worth getting all riled up about.

 

[The_Bishop]

Why do you insist in making this confrontational? I have never taken the nose in the air attitude with you or anyone else.
I never felt any of this was about who is better. Its simply about sharing experience and knowledge with fellow brewers. I've seen the before and after of LoDO and it's simply amazing. That's my experience with it and opinion of it and what I am trying to convey.

And on whether it actually works or not, we will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. None of this is worth getting all riled up about.

Seriously? Are you delusional?

Read this again, and *you* tell me how it comes across:

My hope is simply that other brewers will give it a fair evaluation for themselves before being convinced the earth is flat.

Your statement implies that anyone who disagrees with you is dead wrong. It carries a pomp and attitude that stifles any chance for rational discourse.

Some of your fellow LODO disciples have implicitly stated that anyone not employing your LODO technique is making bad beer. The company you keep and all...

And, yet again, none of you LODO folks want to touch the fact that Burghard Mayer has disagreed with some of your conclusions and questions the usefulness of the extent of the push for LODO in the mash.

 

[Bilsch]

My goal here is simply that people try this and see for themselves.
What is your objective?

 

[brewmeister13]

Can we just get this thing back on topic and stop bickering like my children? 5 pages of useful information has been diluted and spread across 20+ pages.

 

[doug293cz]

My goal here is simply that people try this and see for themselves.
What is your objective?

For many of us, it would require significant investment to implement LoDO processes, even for the test mash. And, many of us feel the evidence so far does not warrant investment, either money or time. We have told you the kind of evidence that would be more convincing, but you choose to ignore that, and keep saying to try it. Not gonna happen.

Brew on

 

[BrunDog]

Seriously Bishop... Let it go already. You made your points and are stuck on the hamster wheel, filling pages of posts with the same repetitive statements. Nobody is requiring you to do this, so go make beer you like and be happy. I did not get any of the arrogance you keep claiming the LODO group displayed, so I honestly think your war is one-sided.

For the record, the paper was very specific about their methods and results, and stated from the beginning that there was no real gray zone - the DO had to be below a certain critical level, and the method is the most practical way to achieve it for the homebrewer. You can't do some of it, then claim the rest of it is crap or the technique failed because you are unwilling to include it or buy the requisite hardware.

Regarding the evidence... The LODO fans do not owe you anything. Try it if you want, don't if you don't. Many people on this forum offer ideas and advice, but none of them are obligated to scientifically prove the merit of those ideas. That's the point of an community of hobbyists. Caveat emptor.

I have no horse in this race... But I am curious and do want to learn more about Brew science. Please let's get back to that.

 

[Blue-Frog]

Its good to go forward, but in fairness, I did feel a hint of religious fire in the discussion which makes me suspect the "belivers"; The simple truth is attention to detail makes better beer! Few here would say "The more O2 the Better" So lets go forward.

 

[dsniegocki]

Food grade CO2 at 99.9% purity can have .1% air (1000 ppm) or about 30ppm O2. Therefore the CO2 itself may push the beer DO concentration above the recommended. Kunze and other literature state to that if CO2 must be force added use the purest possible. By not naturally carbonating you may have oxidized your beer to the point that the procedures that you did follow do not matter.

Force carbonation aside, if this is the case, how might dispensing the beer be handled? A half-empty keg has quite a bit of headspace filled with CO2, I would think this would even more of a culprit than the force carbonation.

 

[The_Bishop]

As I said before, I'm open to new ideas. I'm all for advancing knowledge in any way, shape or form.

However, you cannot open up with: "This will make the best beer ever! All other beer will suck in comparison!" and not expect a little skepticism, especially when you're making very bold claims with little to no evidence to back it up. When you propose a new idea, the burden of proof is definitely on you. You cannot make a claim and state, "Trust me, it works!" and expect that no one will question it.

I'm not fighting a war. I'm saying that their claims are grandiose with little to back them up. When I tried their suggestions as far as my equipment would carry them and didn't get the results they claim I was told that I 'did it wrong' because I didn't ferment in a corny keg with a spunding valve, and I dry hopped the beer. It's very hard to ferment 5.5 gallons of wort in a 5 gallon corny keg, and making a hoppy beer without dry hopping is impossible. I fermented in a carboy, dryhopped near the end of fermentation, cold crashed under CO2 and fined with gelatin (including pre-boiling the water for the gelatin and dosing it with SMB). I purged the keg by filling it to the very top with a sanitizer/SMB solution that they suggested and pushing it out with CO2. I took *every* precaution I could reasonably take in regards to O2, following suggestions made by the LODO crowd. When the results of my test didn't knock my socks off with it being the best version of this beer ever (I have brewed this recipe before), I was told that I did it wrong even though I accommodated their suggestions in regard to deviations from the paper they presented and that the CO2 I was using was only 99.9% pure and as compromising the results. How do we push beer out of a keg then?

I'm not trying to be confrontational in regards to the process they propose. I'm merely asking for some evidence that it actually produces a better beer, not a difference in the mashing process. My experimentation showed it did not, in this case.

I did take umbrage with the fact that some of the LODO crowd explicitly said (several times) that anyone not brewing in accordance with their 'bible' was making bad beer. There are a hell of a lot of talented brewers here that make fantastic beer without $400 D.O. meters or going to the extraordinary lengths to preclude O2 from the mashing process, or fermenting in kegs with spunding valves.

We can all agree that it's good practice to reasonably limit O2 exposure of the wort prior to the pitch of the yeast and post ferment. It's probably not a good idea to stir air into the mash like a blender using a stirrer on a drill, and avoiding hot side splashing or aeration takes a few common sense precautions.

I'm skeptical that the somewhat excessive precautions they're advocating will produce a better beer. I tried their suggestions to see for myself, and didn't get the results they're claiming. It's possible that in a very small subset of beers their process might be beneficial, but without testing and experimentation it's strictly a theory.

There have been several claims that larger breweries in Germany use this LODO process. I'm not saying they don't, but I'll wager they're not using SMB and pre-boiling the brewing liquor. They have degassing equipment that doesn't alter the mineral composition of the water. I've done some cursory research on the concept, and haven't found much aside from the references made in the paper presented. There are several references in the paper I find questionable, such as steam purging brewing plumbing to reduce/eliminate oxygen (The steam may initially do so, but when it condenses it will create a vacuum that will draw in atmospheric air) and mashing under a 'blanket' of inert gas (gasses do not behave that way, diffusion will rapidly mix all gasses in the headspace.)

My postulation is that this is a big-brewery process to make a more shelf-stable product for a limited subset of beers, and not necessarily something that needs to be emulated on a home brewing level. You must keep in mind that Helles (and other delicate beers) will show off flavors as if there's a spotlight pointed at them, and on a commercial production level they need a product that will keep for months in sub-optimal storage conditions. This commercial low dissolved oxygen process facilitates those conditions and is not necessarily a process that home brewers (or even small craft breweries with high turnover rates) need to adhere by. In fact, Krone's (cited several times in the paper) craft beer systems employ none of these low dissolved oxygen techniques.

I think the original posters of the paper may have misconstrued some of the concepts they've read about, a sentiment echoed by Burghard Meyer of the Research and Teaching Institute in Berlin according to Brewfun.

With this, I've voiced my dissenting opinion and I'm done unless anyone has any questions. I'll return to brewing my horribly oxidized beer.

 

[rabeb25]

Force carbonation aside, if this is the case, how might dispensing the beer be handled? A half-empty keg has quite a bit of headspace filled with CO2, I would think this would even more of a culprit than the force carbonation.

Yup its absolutely a concern.

 

[dsniegocki]

Yup its absolutely a concern.

How might the dispensing of the beer be handled, then?

 

[rabeb25]

Thats why we chose the spunding method. You get pure co2, and if using food grade or higher co2, you should still fall under the .15 guideline, and its NOT possible if you force carb and dispense(even with a proper purge and vaccum of a keg). Of course this was all measured and tested with our DO meters.

 

[thedon986]

Thats why we chose the spunding method. You get pure co2, and if using food grade or higher co2, you should still fall under the .15 guideline, and its NOT possible if you force carb and dispense(even with a proper purge and vaccum of a keg). Of course this was all measured and tested with our DO meters.

But that does not answer the question of dispensing the beer after natural carbonation. It has to be pushed with CO2, which stated can and probably does have 30ppm O2, which will dissolve in the beer will it not?

 

[dsniegocki]

Thats why we chose the spunding method. You get pure co2, and if using food grade or higher co2, you should still fall under the .15 guideline, and its NOT possible if you force carb and dispense. Of course this was all measured and tested with our DO meters.

I understand the concept of spunding to naturally carbonate at the very end of fermentation, but what I don't understand is how the naturally produced CO2 also generates enough pressure to dispense 5 gallons of beer.