Interesting German Brewing PDF

[rabeb25]

Correct, I did answer but now that I read it, I will repost it more clear.

"Thats why we chose the spunding method. You get pure co2, and if using food grade or higher co2(to dispense), you should still fall under the .15 guideline That is 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]

Correct, I did answer but now that I read it, I will repost it more clear.

"Thats why we chose the spunding method. You get pure co2, and if using food grade or higher co2(to dispense), you should still fall under the .15 guideline That is 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.

I still don't understand. You are under 30ppm after natural carbonation but once you hook up the CO2 (30ppm) to dispense, how do the dissolved gases not come to equilibrium? Are you saying that the CO2 in the headspace (30ppm) will not dissolve into the beer and the beer will somehow remain under .15ppm?

 

[rabeb25]

You still have sulfur, fermentation related sulfites and some yeast in the beer to scrub oxygen. We had played with a small addition of SMB at kegging up to 6mg/l, as we found that was a dosage that Narziss recommended at bottling. It seemed to work well, but some people were able to pick up too much sulfite and sulfur, so we omitted it.. but its very valid. That's why we chose bavarian yeast strains that are heavy sulfur producers, personally I use 838.

 

[jddevinn]

I still don't understand. You are under 30ppm after natural carbonation but once you hook up the CO2 (30ppm) to dispense, how do the dissolved gases not come to equilibrium? Are you saying that the CO2 in the headspace (30ppm) will not dissolve into the beer and the beer will somehow remain under .15ppm?

Once fully carbed the co2 in the headspace will not dissolve into the beer as the beer is already saturated at the pressure and temperature.

 

[Bilsch]

I think the purity of the CO2 is less of a concern these days since most of the supplies, at least in the west and midwest come as by products of ethanol manufacture and are of a higher quality. Check with your local bulk supplier but usually they only bring in one grade that is used for all purposes such as welding, food and beverage, industrial uses etc. and typically is 99.99%. They do list O as a contaminant but that is total of the contaminants and the oxygen in there is not all O2 but most as trace amounts of SO2, CO, NO2, H2O, N2O ect. which probably won't harm your beer. Especially in small amounts like pushing a keg that was naturally carbonated.

 

[doug293cz]

Once fully carbed the co2 in the headspace will not dissolve into the beer as the beer is already saturated at the pressure and temperature.

Actually, at equilibrium the CO2 in the beer will diffuse out of the beer at the same rate that CO2 in the headspace diffuses into the beer. Equilibrium doesn't mean there is no exchange of gas between the headspace and beer, just that there is no NET mass transfer between the beer and headspace.

Also, the equilibria of CO2 and O2 are independent of each other, and each depends on the amount dissolved in the beer vs. the partial pressure of each in the headspace. If you put gas in the headspace (while dispensing) that has an O2 partial pressure higher than the partial pressure that would be in equilibrium with the DO level in the beer, then more O2 will dissolve in the beer. @rabeb25 's point is that if the initial DO level in the beer is low enough, dispensing with 30 ppm O2 in the CO2 won't result in enough additional O2 absorption to raise the DO level above a critical level. I would like to see how the calculations on that were done, as there are a lot of potential errors that can be made, starting with an invalid system model.

Brew on

 

[thedon986]

Once fully carbed the co2 in the headspace will not dissolve into the beer as the beer is already saturated at the pressure and temperature.

But CO2 and O2 are distinct gases. I understand the keg should be naturally carbonated to storing/serving pressure, but that doesn't explain exactly why the O2 (up to 30ppm) will not dissolve into the beer and become equilibrium with the CO2 cylinder 02 content but will somehow remain at .15ppm.

 

[thedon986]

Actually, at equilibrium the CO2 in the beer will diffuse out of the beer at the same rate that CO2 in the headspace diffuses into the beer. Equilibrium doesn't mean there is no exchange of gas between the headspace and beer, just that there is no NET mass transfer between the beer and headspace.

Also, the equilibria of CO2 and O2 are independent of each other, and each depends on the amount dissolved in the beer vs. the partial pressure of each in the headspace. If you put gas in the headspace (while dispensing) that has an O2 partial pressure higher than the partial pressure that would be in equilibrium with the DO level in the beer, then more O2 will dissolve in the beer. @rabeb25 's point is that if the initial DO level in the beer is low enough, dispensing with 30 ppm O2 in the CO2 won't result in enough additional O2 absorption to raise the DO level above a critical level. I would like to see how the calculations on that were done, as there are a lot of potential errors that can be made, starting with an invalid system model.

Brew on

Beat me to it. Thanks.

 

[dsniegocki]

For myself (and I would guess a few other homebrewers), this (like many other brewing techniques) comes down to: Does doing "X" improve my beer enough to be worth the "X" amount of time and/or expense that the rest of my waking hours spent with my job/spouse/children/whatever to be worth it?

Leaving out the HSA for now (if for no other reason so that I can focus), I already do about all I can to eliminate oxygen during any post-ferment beer transfer. I am now tempted to carbonate via spunding/krausening. I've seen the other thread regarding this, good points made there. But if all of this goes out the window when I apply 10psi of my not-quite-pure CO2 to dispense (I've got 20+ foot lines), then what have I gained?

Which leads me to this question: Is my potential gain IMMEDIATE flavor improvement? Or, as my understanding is, cold beer takes time to be affected by these relatively low concentrations of oxygen, is this a problem that only manifests itself over time? In other words, can I solve this issue by simply DRINKING MY BEER FASTER?

I think that's what I'll try next...

 

[Joe Dragon]

A couple things seem contradictory here:

The yeast should be well mixed into the wort, and oxygen or sterile air added only after pitching, with a target DO level of approximately 8 ppm [4].

Yes, I've read the write-up completely.

After fighting the presence of oxygen during the entire process you are to add oxygen back in (yes, the yeast need it) but THIS oxygen doesn't cause oxidation? The beer (now that the yeast has been pitched) is exposed to 8 PPM of pure oxygen but is not affected?

Whereas- "Indeed, by measuring DO levels alongside each batch, we have found that it takes less than 1 minute of oxygen exposure in excess of 1 ppm to completely rob the beer of the fresh malt flavor."

So less than 1 minute at 1 PPM= bad. Several hours at 8 PPM= good?

I also fail to see how you could mash in light fluffy crushed grains and not have the oxygen enter the mash. As we "know", 1 PPM for a minute will ruin the beer.

Finally, "Originally Posted by Edelst0ff View Post. 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.

This type of hubris is unattractive to say the least.

 

[UndeadFred]

Actually, I sort of agree with both sides on this. The CO2 equilibrium stuff is spot on, the ion exchange will happen even when it appears that everything is balanced. I agree that O2 is bad and needs to be minimized, but to go as far as stating the oxides on copper will add O2 to the beer? How about the oxides of Chromium on Stainless or Aluminum Oxides? (They are tougher? hmm not to acids..)

As an engineer, even I'm calling BS on that.

I know many of the members of the German Brewing group on Facebook and I'm a member, and I'm not really questioning if it would help to reduce O2 especially in Helles. I've been an oddball for awhile in that I like to prime my kegs because I perceive the beer to carbonate better, taste better, have better head retention, etc. And maybe that's because even when just priming, O2 is taken out...

But for me to ever get to the full suggested LoDo system stated is beyond the amount of money I want to or can spend on the system. I'm not converting over to a 3V system without actual scientific proof, and I would guess many people out there feel the same way as I do.

But if, for example, a spunding valve is 50% of the difference, we can document that and suggest that as a major improvement.

I'm switching my recirc to a submerged whirlpool arm on the next brew and I'll minimize splashing, but I still will BIAB because I like doing it that way. To get this to go for an experiment, you guessed it I fabricated it out of copper tubing I had lying around.

What is not helpful is stating to throw all of your stuff out and follow a process with about a dozen and a half variables added based on it working for someone else, with no real independent confirmation.

What would be helpful is to make a list of improvements to standard processes as a "bucket list" so we can do this over time.

I more or less asked this pages ago and no one could let me know what I should knock off first. I believe it is because you really don't know. You need to know if you want to make this more main stream. If you have dissolved O2 meters, then really you should have someone measure one variable at a time and determine bang for the buck.

It very well may be that 30 ppm is the magic number for Helles, but I'd bet a stout would be much more tolerant to O2... but maybe not 300 PPM tolerant. It would be good to know if we could get to, say 50 PPM with simple changes.. even if you don't believe that's enough.

I'm still interested and following, but for wide spread acceptance, more data is really needed. It is really needed. Really.

 

[rabeb25]

Actually, at equilibrium the CO2 in the beer will diffuse out of the beer at the same rate that CO2 in the headspace diffuses into the beer. Equilibrium doesn't mean there is no exchange of gas between the headspace and beer, just that there is no NET mass transfer between the beer and headspace.

Also, the equilibria of CO2 and O2 are independent of each other, and each depends on the amount dissolved in the beer vs. the partial pressure of each in the headspace. If you put gas in the headspace (while dispensing) that has an O2 partial pressure higher than the partial pressure that would be in equilibrium with the DO level in the beer, then more O2 will dissolve in the beer. @rabeb25 's point is that if the initial DO level in the beer is low enough, dispensing with 30 ppm O2 in the CO2 won't result in enough additional O2 absorption to raise the DO level above a critical level. I would like to see how the calculations on that were done, as there are a lot of potential errors that can be made, starting with an invalid system model.

Brew on

Apparently you skimmed past this......
"You still have sulfur, fermentation related sulfites and some yeast in the beer to scrub oxygen. We had played with a small addition of SMB at kegging up to 6mg/l, as we found that was a dosage that Narziss recommended at bottling. It seemed to work well, but some people were able to pick up too much sulfite and sulfur, so we omitted it.. but its very valid. That's why we chose bavarian yeast strains that are heavy sulfur producers, personally I use 838."

 

[Iseneye]

Actually, I sort of agree with both sides on this. The CO2 equilibrium stuff is spot on, the ion exchange will happen even when it appears that everything is balanced. I agree that O2 is bad and needs to be minimized, but to go as far as stating the oxides on copper will add O2 to the beer? How about the oxides of Chromium on Stainless or Aluminum Oxides? (They are tougher? hmm not to acids..)

As an engineer, even I'm calling BS on that.

My only knowledge from this comes from my reading of the German brewing forum. The issue is that copper creates super oxidants (or whatever the correct term is). I guess the other thing to consider is that the guys aren't coming up with this stuff themselves (which they note). The comments seem to be on these guys unproven claims but they are basing it off respected German brewing literature.

It very well may be that 30 ppm is the magic number for Helles, but I'd bet a stout would be much more tolerant to O2... but maybe not 300 PPM tolerant. It would be good to know if we could get to, say 50 PPM with simple changes.. even if you don't believe that's enough.

I'm still interested and following, but for wide spread acceptance, more data is really needed. It is really needed. Really.

Where does the 50 / 300ppm come from? The LODO guys reference <0.15ppm as a requirement in the finished beer. Considering we're only oxygenating to 8ppm in the wort I don't know how you would even get 02 that high. I may have missed something.

 

[TheHairyHop]

A couple things seem contradictory here:

The yeast should be well mixed into the wort, and oxygen or sterile air added only after pitching, with a target DO level of approximately 8 ppm [4].

Yes, I've read the write-up completely.

After fighting the presence of oxygen during the entire process you are to add oxygen back in (yes, the yeast need it) but THIS oxygen doesn't cause oxidation? The beer (now that the yeast has been pitched) is exposed to 8 PPM of pure oxygen but is not affected?

Whereas- "Indeed, by measuring DO levels alongside each batch, we have found that it takes less than 1 minute of oxygen exposure in excess of 1 ppm to completely rob the beer of the fresh malt flavor."

So less than 1 minute at 1 PPM= bad. Several hours at 8 PPM= good?

I do not claim to be versed at all (you may have read more than me), but I believe that I have the answer. when the wort is at pitching temps, the rate of oxidation is equal to or lower than the oxygen uptake of the yeast. when things are hot, that is when oxidation can happen before you know it

 

[doug293cz]

Actually, at equilibrium the CO2 in the beer will diffuse out of the beer at the same rate that CO2 in the headspace diffuses into the beer. Equilibrium doesn't mean there is no exchange of gas between the headspace and beer, just that there is no NET mass transfer between the beer and headspace.

Also, the equilibria of CO2 and O2 are independent of each other, and each depends on the amount dissolved in the beer vs. the partial pressure of each in the headspace. If you put gas in the headspace (while dispensing) that has an O2 partial pressure higher than the partial pressure that would be in equilibrium with the DO level in the beer, then more O2 will dissolve in the beer. @rabeb25 's point is that if the initial DO level in the beer is low enough, dispensing with 30 ppm O2 in the CO2 won't result in enough additional O2 absorption to raise the DO level above a critical level. I would like to see how the calculations on that were done, as there are a lot of potential errors that can be made, starting with an invalid system model.

Brew on

Apparently you skimmed past this......
"You still have sulfur, fermentation related sulfites and some yeast in the beer to scrub oxygen. We had played with a small addition of SMB at kegging up to 6mg/l, as we found that was a dosage that Narziss recommended at bottling. It seemed to work well, but some people were able to pick up too much sulfite and sulfur, so we omitted it.. but its very valid. That's why we chose bavarian yeast strains that are heavy sulfur producers, personally I use 838."

I fail to see how your response (and previous post) invalidates, or even relates to what I said. Can you elaborate?

If there is something in the beer that will consume DO, thus lowering DO, the headspace O2 partial pressure and changed DO level will still tend towards equilibrium. If there is excess (w.r.t. equilibrium) O2 in the headspace, then more O2 will dissolve in the beer.

Brew on

 

[dsniegocki]

Apparently you skimmed past this......
"You still have sulfur, fermentation related sulfites and some yeast in the beer to scrub oxygen. We had played with a small addition of SMB at kegging up to 6mg/l, as we found that was a dosage that Narziss recommended at bottling. It seemed to work well, but some people were able to pick up too much sulfite and sulfur, so we omitted it.. but its very valid. That's why we chose bavarian yeast strains that are heavy sulfur producers, personally I use 838."

So... at what point do the yeast stop doing their work here? My understanding is that yeast will stop "working" for a number of reasons (no more fermentable sugars, temperature drop, they die, OSHA break, whatever), and although I know that they use O2 to do their work, I didn't imagine that they would "stop" and remain dormant until more O2 was present to scrub. I guess I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this idea that a keg, several weeks into drinking, may be at that point 50% or 75% full of commercial CO2, and the oxygen can be munched up by the residual yeast in the remaining beer (and mitigated by the sulfur?)... but somehow the amount of commercial CO2 used to force carbonate is too much to handle?

 

[stpug]

This is how I've been affected by the pdf from the german site:

I read it and thought, "what a bunch of bullsh!t". Then I reread it and started to envision how I could try this myself. I implemented what was easy with what I already have and what was cheap to get. Turns out I was able to implement the majority of the hotside steps with no additional purchases. A few process adjustments; an added chemical to weigh out; an oxygen barrier to put on the mash. So far, it has cost me $8 and has added a maximum of 15 minutes to my brewday, but that may also just be the warm summer groundwater taking extra cooling time. Where I stand now is that I'm not that far off from the full hotside recommendations of the pdf and with very little effort - just some thought, process changes, and willingness to experiment (which I'm always willing to do with my hobby). I figure the coldside should be easy - gravity measurements, rack to keg with few points left, and spunding valve. The only additional cost here will be spunding apparatus, but there are ways around this as well (known FFT and racking at correct gravity reading = no spunding necessary).

Have I implemented everything in the pdf? No. Have I brewed batches with as many changes as I can currently muster? Yes. Have I seen vast improvements in the end product? Nothing vast yet, but it's still great beer. Am I withholding judgement on the low oxygen brewing method until I can honestly say I've done everything they've listed is necessary? You betcha!

In some ways, my brewday has become easier because I mess with the mash much less, which is a benefit to my stirring elbow too

 

[TheHairyHop]

This is how I've been affected by the pdf from the german site:

I read it and thought, "what a bunch of bullsh!t". Then I reread it and started to envision how I could try this myself. I implemented what was easy with what I already have and what was cheap to get. Turns out I was able to implement the majority of the hotside steps with no additional purchases. A few process adjustments; an added chemical to weigh out; an oxygen barrier to put on the mash. So far, it has cost me $8 and has added a maximum of 15 minutes to my brewday, but that may also just be the warm summer groundwater taking extra cooling time. Where I stand now is that I'm not that far off from the full hotside recommendations of the pdf and with very little effort - just some thought, process changes, and willingness to experiment (which I'm always willing to do with my hobby). I figure the coldside should be easy - gravity measurements, rack to keg with few points left, and spunding valve. The only additional cost here will be spunding apparatus, but there are ways around this as well (known FFT and racking at correct gravity reading = no spunding necessary).

Have I implemented everything in the pdf? No. Have I brewed batches with as many changes as I can currently muster? Yes. Have I seen vast improvements in the end product? Nothing vast yet, but it's still great beer. Am I withholding judgement on the low oxygen brewing method until I can honestly say I've done everything they've listed is necessary? You betcha!

In some ways, my brewday has become easier because I mess with the mash much less, which is a benefit to my stirring elbow too

the process changes are the opposite for me! I just picked up a bunch of cold side equipment for lowering oxygen in order to make my IPAs better. of course, my PPMs probably won't be what these guys are aiming for, but I'm working my way to there.

since you stir(red) your mash, I'm assuming you don't use a pump. therefore, how are you agitating your mash in order to prevent clumps and such?

 

[TexasWine]

This is how I've been affected by the pdf from the german site:

I read it and thought, "what a bunch of bullsh!t". Then I reread it and started to envision how I could try this myself. I implemented what was easy with what I already have and what was cheap to get. Turns out I was able to implement the majority of the hotside steps with no additional purchases. A few process adjustments; an added chemical to weigh out; an oxygen barrier to put on the mash. So far, it has cost me $8 and has added a maximum of 15 minutes to my brewday, but that may also just be the warm summer groundwater taking extra cooling time. Where I stand now is that I'm not that far off from the full hotside recommendations of the pdf and with very little effort - just some thought, process changes, and willingness to experiment (which I'm always willing to do with my hobby). I figure the coldside should be easy - gravity measurements, rack to keg with few points left, and spunding valve. The only additional cost here will be spunding apparatus, but there are ways around this as well (known FFT and racking at correct gravity reading = no spunding necessary).

Have I implemented everything in the pdf? No. Have I brewed batches with as many changes as I can currently muster? Yes. Have I seen vast improvements in the end product? Nothing vast yet, but it's still great beer. Am I withholding judgement on the low oxygen brewing method until I can honestly say I've done everything they've listed is necessary? You betcha!

In some ways, my brewday has become easier because I mess with the mash much less, which is a benefit to my stirring elbow too

I've come to a similar conclusion. Very minimal cost to my set up and no extra time. First brew I used an old lid as a mash cap, already had a spunding valve laying around from a previous experiment, so I just needed to buy a few fittings for that and to connect my CO2 to a rubber stopper to push the beer out of my fermenter to the keg. Already had the NaMeta from wine making.

Since then I've bought a 14" diameter stainless steel cake pan to use as a mash cap. I'll use an extra bulk head I have laying around for the wort return. Next time I'll also use my stainless immersion chiller as a pre chiller to my plate chiller. So I need to buy a few fittings for that too. Cheap stuff really.

So, no major purchases for me.

Oh, and I BIAB. I was just really careful with my grains.

 

[TheHairyHop]

I've only gotten to page 21 (I'll catch up) but can it basically be said that this methodology doesn't really work with hop stands? (at least, without some serious equipment)

 

[UndeadFred]

Ah, whatever.. when I said those numbers I was doing it from memory.. X ppm versus Y ppm.. X and Y matter but not when you can't measure it. For those who can, my argument still stands. Measure it for us. Lets get some numbers per "system improvement", please.

Again, I'm going to start to clean up my system that way, and I think many of us are.. HOWEVER, bang for buck for many of us is a consideration.

I'm still weary about the Copper Oxide stuff because it again sounds like the religious quest against anything but glass and stainless repackaged. Fabrication equipment myself is a big part of what I like to do and soft copper is so easy in many cases. I'd need proof to start ripping that stuff out of my system.

I am also somewhat weary of adding sulfites to my otherwise completely natural product. But I do get the other reason now why so many wineries do it... It's not just to stop fermentation.

I have no sensitivities to sulfites, so likely I'll try it the next time I do a pilsner malt beer... later this summer.. I'll try anything once.

But... again.. having some priority list would be helpful for use intermediately advanced brewers. that whole spunding valve idea has intrigued me since I started...

I read that the MoreBeer ones have problems.. does anyone know were I could get a higher quality one. I prefer to have it work and not blow out the overpressure valve. I read that most of them don't close properly once opened under <40 PSI. I would put a gauge on it and pop it myself but I'm too busy to babysit my beers every night so a proper adjustable relief valve that will also close would be so nice....

 

[rabeb25]

Good day gents, and I wish you all luck.

 

[stpug]

since you stir(red) your mash, I'm assuming you don't use a pump. therefore, how are you agitating your mash in order to prevent clumps and such?

I've moved to underlet the mash which seems to give excellent distribution of strike water throughout the grain. After the underlet finishes, I do some minimal, slow stirring to feel good about myself . I also do some slow, minimal stirring just prior to draining the MLT, again, to feel good about myself. My goal is to not agitate the surface of the wort and to not bring the grains above the surface of the wort. First batch worked well this way; second batch not as well.

I've come to a similar conclusion. Very minimal cost to my set up and no extra time. First brew I used an old lid as a mash cap, already had a spunding valve laying around from a previous experiment, so I just needed to buy a few fittings for that and to connect my CO2 to a rubber stopper to push the beer out of my fermenter to the keg. Already had the NaMeta from wine making.

Since then I've bought a 14" diameter stainless steel cake pan to use as a mash cap. I'll use an extra bulk head I have laying around for the wort return. Next time I'll also use my stainless immersion chiller as a pre chiller to my plate chiller. So I need to buy a few fittings for that too. Cheap stuff really.

So, no major purchases for me.

Oh, and I BIAB. I was just really careful with my grains.

I think most folks would find that with some creativity they have a fair amount of what would be needed to implement the pdf changes. For me, it was a fair amount of "thinking on it" and visualizing the process changes before I actually tried anything. My cold side is where things suffer but I'll get something worked out - even if it's just an early rack and keg venting the first try.

I've only gotten to page 21 (I'll catch up) but can it basically be said that this methodology doesn't really work with hop stands? (at least, without some serious equipment)

I cannot see why it wouldn't work with hop stands. Keep agitation minimal; keep a lid on it; and if in doubt you can dose with a small NaMeta dose at flameout to provide some insurance. As for exact ppm of oxygen ingress during the hopstand, I cannot say - I don't have a meter, but would imagine minimal with gentle treatment of the wort.

 

[germanbrewing]

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.

Yep, fair. This is totally expected!

I'm not fighting a war. I'm saying that their claims are grandiose with little to back them up.

Had to grab attention and make a statement. Marketing.

That said, I side with Kunze to help me make the beers I want to brew.

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.

Keep working on it. First of all, know and define your goal for what 'better' means to you and for what style(s). To say a LODO APA is my goal, you will likely not notice it on the first go around. If you (and this seems to be really specific to certain people) find a German Helles from Germany that you can buy today to have a unique taste, this is for you. If not, your mileage may vary.

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.

By saying 'bible', you're kinda playing your card that this is a religious war to you. Nah dude, let's talk. A little over a year ago a couple of dudes came together to say...damn, why don't any "German lagers" in the US taste like the ones in Germany? And we've been trying to figure that out and adding to the group. And some really bright folks, I might add.

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.

Or...the results came and went, without you noticing. I have brewed some of the most delicious and simultaneously most bizarre beers in the past year. We're talking about a living organism tied to our taste buds with about as many variables to tweak as anything on earth. I'm sipping some lodo Pilsner now that, while a completely freakish recipe, actually tastes characteristically right to me (I'm on a quest to brew East German style Pilsners). When you stop trying to mash the thing out of existence, then ferment it into oblivion, interesting subtleties start to happen (blaming myself on these issues). Too little sulfur, too much sulfur, great malt flavor, then poof, it's gone.

Regarding the mash blending with a drill, apparently that was tried and no difference was noted...that's the point, it's more precise than that.

We backed into this (I should say technically techbrau and rabeb, though as part of a team trying to figure this out) accidentally after trying everything else on Earth to do. But...there is still a long way to go to truly nail it for many different styles. We are homebrewers and we're trying to reproduce centuries of accumulated brewing skill and knowledge "Fingerspitzengefühl" as my wife puts it, based on trial and error, brewing texts and reverse engineering.

We figured this proposed approach is useful for, at best, 2% of homebrewers. And for folks that already have the basics nailed and can brew a great Helles to begin with. But can't brew THE Helles. If this isn't for you, I totally get it. (however, whether you realize it or not, I suspect it is and that you're exactly who should be working on this).

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.

Yes, most, if not all are likely not using SMB (I'd be shocked if any do)...you're missing the forest for the trees. Go stand in your brewing room and say, hmmmm, if I were trying to mitigate oxygen, how would I do it?

Then...you can go say, hmmmm, if I was Augustiner, and I was trying to mitigate oxygen, how would I do it? Entirely different problems to solve, with entirely different solutions (though I truly hope some resourceful entrepreneur comes up with a turnkey mechanical vs chemical solution for me).

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.)

Solve it...how would you mitigate this issue?

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.

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 for every style. Helles (and other delicate beers like Pilsner) will both not reach their potential and will show off flavors as if there's a spotlight pointed at them. Low oxygen brewing opens a door to helping to preserve these subtle flavors, and that when combined with additional techniques and perfection of process produce an authentic Helles or Pilsner. Note: this may apply to other styles as well, but the results may taste different than expected.

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.

Perhaps. I am curious to visit more local breweries on my next trip to Germany. I agree. And wonder where oddballs like Square-cube law fall into this in terms of oxygen affect on flavor relative to volume and process. I'll try to meet up with Matthias at Bayerischer Bahnhof again and any other breweries I can stop at and try to get compare beers and get a better understanding of their process. A contact at Weyermann said they don't treat their water nor deoxygenate (go figure they gave me, the American, an IPA to try instead of Pilsner when I toured there). To me, low O2 is a door (now open), it's not the entire answer. There's a lot to it, at least for what I taste in German beers that I love.

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.

 

[TheHairyHop]

I've moved to underlet the mash which seems to give excellent distribution of strike water throughout the grain. After the underlet finishes, I do some minimal, slow stirring to feel good about myself . I also do some slow, minimal stirring just prior to draining the MLT, again, to feel good about myself. My goal is to not agitate the surface of the wort and to not bring the grains above the surface of the wort. First batch worked well this way; second batch not as well.

thanks for the reply, btw.

ah, problematic as I don't have any pumps. oh well

I cannot see why it wouldn't work with hop stands. Keep agitation minimal; keep a lid on it; and if in doubt you can dose with a small NaMeta dose at flameout to provide some insurance. As for exact ppm of oxygen ingress during the hopstand, I cannot say - I don't have a meter, but would imagine minimal with gentle treatment of the wort.

as an excerpt from the article

"Furthermore, you can also verify with your dissolved oxygen meter that another
1-2 ppm of oxygen diffuses into the wort per hour from the atmosphere. In our
experiments, we have found that even 1 ppm of dissolved oxygen present at any
time during the entire hot side of the process is enough to ensure the loss of fresh malt flavors from the beer."

any lid on my keggle is going to have sizable headspace. unless I come up with some sort of floating flexible mat

 

[TheHairyHop]

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.

thanks for commenting on this! I can't help myself but also chime in: using p-values has been discredited to the point of beating a dead horse. they mean very little, and an experiment with 128 samples and only 2 hypotheses isn't saying much at all.

to continue my two cents, the amount of experimental effort for one person or even a single group to validate a particular method over another would be enormous and almost impossible. it is an unfortunate fact and perhaps one of the reasons that brewing beer continues to be just as much of an art as it is a science

 

[doug293cz]

So... at what point do the yeast stop doing their work here? My understanding is that yeast will stop "working" for a number of reasons (no more fermentable sugars, temperature drop, they die, OSHA break, whatever), and although I know that they use O2 to do their work, I didn't imagine that they would "stop" and remain dormant until more O2 was present to scrub. I guess I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this idea that a keg, several weeks into drinking, may be at that point 50% or 75% full of commercial CO2, and the oxygen can be munched up by the residual yeast in the remaining beer (and mitigated by the sulfur?)... but somehow the amount of commercial CO2 used to force carbonate is too much to handle?

There are two classes of species in beer that can consume DO by getting oxidized:

1. Species that get oxidized, but the oxidation products don't degrade flavor
2. Species that get oxidized, and the oxidation products do degrade flavor

Metabite is of the first type, and apparently has a higher affinity for and/or reaction rate with DO than all, or most of the second type. There may be other class 1 species than metabite. The class 1 species can only do their magic until they are mostly oxidized, and then the DO starts oxidizing the class 2 species.

With forced carbonation you get more total O2 than with spunded carbonation. Say you have 0.8 volumes of residual CO2 at kegging. If you want to carb to 2.5 volumes, you need to add 1.7 volumes (or 1.7 * 5 = 8.5 gal) of CO2 to the beer. If you force carb, that 1.7 volumes comes from the tank. If you spund, that 1.7 volumes (8.5 gal) is generated by yeast eating residual sugar (0 DO.) Then it's going to take 5 * (14.7 psi + 11 psi) / 14.7 psi = 8.74 gal to serve the keg (11 psi @ 37.5&#730;F gives 2.5 volumes.) So spunding and serving will expose the beer to 8.74 gal of CO2, and force carbing and serving will expose the beer to 17.24 gal of CO2, almost twice as much. The O2 exposure will also be almost twice as much.

The German Brewers' theory is that there are enough class 1 species in the beer made with their process to consume enough of the O2 just due to serving to avoid flavor issues, but not enough class 1 species to deal with the extra O2 from forced carbing.

What I haven't seen anything about is how the decreasing beer to headspace (and thus O2) ratio during serving allows the class 1 species to keep up with the ever increasing amount of O2 in the headspace. The partial pressure of O2 in the headspace will decrease with time as the O2 in the headspace dissolves into the beer, and is consumed by the class 1 species. DO consumption reduces the equilibrium partial pressure, so more headspace O2 will dissolve. As the beer is consumed, more O2 is added to the headspace, increasing the partial pressure, and allowing more dissolution. Looks like a complicated situation to model correctly, which is why I made the comment about how the calculation was done that says the total O2 from the serving CO2 is ok, but the total O2 from force carbing plus serving is too much.

Brew on

 

[stpug]

thanks for the reply, btw.
ah, problematic as I don't have any pumps. oh well

I don't use a pump for the underlet. Simply let gravity drain from HLT at counter height to MLT on floor. I actually restrict the flow to keep it slow.

as an excerpt from the article

"Furthermore, you can also verify with your dissolved oxygen meter that another
1-2 ppm of oxygen diffuses into the wort per hour from the atmosphere. In our
experiments, we have found that even 1 ppm of dissolved oxygen present at any
time during the entire hot side of the process is enough to ensure the loss of fresh malt flavors from the beer."

any lid on my keggle is going to have sizable headspace. unless I come up with some sort of floating flexible mat

Yes, that is what the article says, but there's always a starting point from which you aim to improve. Using a small (think sparge water dosage rate) of NaMeta at flameout should give you some insurance for a period of time - how long exactly is totally unknown to me.

The gist for me is:
Work with what I got and determine for myself if there is improvement in the end product. If I am willing, or able, to implement all of the changes to severe oxygen reduction and never realize the benefits then going back to my normal process is easy. My hangups are coldside (easy enough to test with FFT and early racking, or bite the bullet for a spunding setup) and copper (I'll be testing with SS soon).

Right now I'm brewing UK ales using much of the low oxygen methods without any expectations of much change from normal (however, hopeful for some above-average character), but am mostly practicing the processes so that when I'm fully ready I'll do a nice german pilsner using the full method for both hot and cold sides.

 

[schematix]

I've been following this thread since the 5th post. I really enjoy the passion this has been sparked on all sides of the debate.

My intuition is that there is merit to the OP's claims. There are a lot of people who say it's difficult to reproduce at the homebrew level, and possibly, unnecessary extra work, but do realize this is the Germans we are talking about.

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).

This is easily solved. Steam purge your pipes right before they are needed and have all the valves on the pipe closed. When you open up the valve from your pump side you'll only be pulling against the pump/tank, which will quickly equalize.

Even if you get a little air in the system, it is common practice in breweries to also send the first X amount of product to a drain before sending it to another tank or to a filler. (I have personally seen in filler control programs logic to monitor the DO in the filler bowl and dump it to a drain if it gets too high.) We do something similar at the plant i work at with shampoo that mixes with water after pipes are flushed because there is a short interface in the pipe where mixing does occur.

and mashing under a 'blanket' of inert gas (gasses do not behave that way, diffusion will rapidly mix all gasses in the headspace.)

Use steam to purge the head space. Maintain positive pressure. Once the air is out it's not coming back in if you have positive pressure.

 

[dsniegocki]

What I haven't seen anything about is how the decreasing beer to headspace (and thus O2) ratio during serving allows the class 1 species to keep up with the ever increasing amount of O2 in the headspace. The partial pressure of O2 in the headspace will decrease with time as the O2 in the headspace dissolves into the beer, and is consumed by the class 1 species. DO consumption reduces the equilibrium partial pressure, so more headspace O2 will dissolve. As the beer is consumed, more O2 is added to the headspace, increasing the partial pressure, and allowing more dissolution. Looks like a complicated situation to model correctly, which is why I made the comment about how the calculation was done that says the total O2 from the serving CO2 is ok, but the total O2 from force carbing plus serving is too much.

This is what I was getting at, but you said it a heck of a lot better than I did. In addition, length of exposure comes into play as well, does it not? ie, the exposure in a half-full keg over a day's time has a different effect than the same keg over the course of a week or two? If I dispense all of my beer at once it certainly would not be the same as if I dispense it over the course of a month, no?

I'm just trying to get to the point where I can understand overall net benefit. If the extra effort (krausening, spunding valve, etc) of natural carbing goes out the window when my half-full keg sits idle for a week with commercial CO2 sitting on top of it, then I haven't gained anything.