Interesting German Brewing PDF

CornyKegs 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

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

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I did have the lid partially on but it was cracked quite a bit, the crescent was a good 2". I'll close the lid all the way and try and see what we get.

But for this weekends brew should I go with the 10% "steam off" or should I dial it up enough to get a little boil action?

My bk has a whirlpool arm, perhaps if I recirculate through that for the boil it would help compensate for the lack of the natural mixing action of the boil to help generate hot break?
 
Thanks for the vid, I'll turn up the heat a bit.

Have you experienced dms at all? I know the guys over at brulosophy did an experiment with the lid on completely and couldn't taste any dms.
 
Absolutly. Anything less than 5% with my settings I get dms.
 
So it might just be the case that it's more to do with the boil intensity than having a lid on completely or cracked? It was interesting that the brulosophy guy mentioned that he experienced the same boiloff amount with the lid on and lid off.
 
Yup, most folks boil the ever living out of the wort. Practically raising the lid off the kettle from all the steam. Waaaaaaay to hard.
 
@thekraken in terms of boil intensity/method, I boil for 60min each batch. 5 minutes of solid simmer/low boil with lid completely off, followed by 50 minutes of low vigor mostly-covered boil (1/8-1/4" crescent crack with low heat input), finished off with 5 minutes uncovered low vigor boil. This is the method that I'm currently settled on and am getting about 8-10% boiloff with no offensive off characteristics. My chilling is also uncovered until temps fall below ~80F, then I'm okay with covering the wort.
 
saltymirv said:
Care to elaborate on that?
Click to expand...

I'll pitch in.
LoDo aside, he was comparing one beer that had an OG/FG of 1.044/1.014 to another that was 1.035/1.006.
Given that they were pale beers without a lot of hops or specialty grains to hide behind, any two beers with that much discrepancy are two entirely different beers and should be easily distinguishable.

Plus, beer with "normal" gravity ranges, like 1.044/1.014 is going to be much more appealing than one with an unusual gravity range like 1.035/1.006.

There is nothing inherent in low O2 brewing that should cause that discrepancy in gravities (they were both no-sparge), so I strongly suspect that his setup created huge temperature stratification in the mash tun and he did not stir it to normalize, which resulted in such a stratification, and therefore horrible efficiency.

That difference alone basically invalidates the variable in question because you are comparing two beers that are significantly dissimilar even without the dissolved oxygen factor.

Note that I am not jumping to the defense of Low O2 or pushing any kind of agenda, I am just stating from an objective point of view that this is not single-variable experiment, and therefore is not valid in measuring the variable it was supposed to.
 
lari said:
brulosophy lodo experiment is bollocks
Click to expand...

Because it disagrees with your opinion? I mean, it was significant...



Cavpilot2000 said:
See above.
Click to expand...


That's one way to look at it, but without establishing it has an impact on things like OG (which some adherents claim it doesn't), any adjustments would be on a whim. Now we know where to go. That's how science works.
 
Brulosopher said:
That's one way to look at it, but without establishing it has an impact on things like OG (which some adherents claim it doesn't), any adjustments would be on a whim. Now we know where to go. That's how science works.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong - I'm glad one of your folks decided to tackle this rather large chore, and I hope there will be more exbeeriments looking into LoDO.

I say rather large chore, because it takes a lot of work to try to tighten up a system to be able to consistently hit a low O2 goals. I know I'm not there yet. I am experimenting with the phenomenon, and have an open mind about, and am excited about the prospects it offers, but I am not yet an adherent, and am a born skeptic in everything, low O2 brewing included.

I am still lagering my two attempts, so I can't speak to the quality of the final product, but I can speak to the observable phenomenon like reduced color, suppressed aroma during mash, and an undeniable fresh sweet cereal grain flavor during fermentation that has never been there before. So it is obvious that it does SOMETHING. What it does, and the observable qualitative differences it produces, I have yet to see, but I am cautiously optimistic.

I think this experiment could be repeated and simply using a gentle stir after mash-in to verify temperature uniformity could reduce or eliminate the huge efficiency differential, which, in my opinion, threw off any results. In my last (only) two Low O2 batches, I still got 75% brewhouse efficiency (I stir).

Anyway, like I said, I applaud the effort, but wish it would be repeated, knowing a simple method to ensure closer efficiencies. It would make the experiment more valid in the eyes of many.

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I think it shouldn't even be a fight. It's one more optional process that nets results that may or may not be to the brewer's liking (like step mashing, decocting, different sparging methods, etc.) (And for the record, my personal jury is still out on this matter).

My only criticism is that I just don't think the experiment was terribly effective because the beers were too different even before evaluating any impact that low O2 methods would have.

I really hope you guys will do a few more. I love reading your exbeeriments.
 
Very interesting topic, and thanks to both the GBF and Brulosophy crews for their efforts on this topic. It is a valid point that the beers sent to triangle tests were dramatically different, though that was the result of the variable (considering the entire LoDO process was a variable).

Personally, I have done a few batches now as close as I could to the paper's LoDO techniques. I too noticed that my efficiency dropped by about 10% on both. Now, that could be due to a few factors:
- Use of SMB. A quick google search pointed out that SMB can be used to stop the enzymatic browning (oxidation) on a cut apple. Could it effect other enzymatic actions also?
- Step mashing. It didn't look like the exbeeriment used a pump, so temperature stratification could be an issue. I am curious if it could have this large of an effect on mash efficiency though. I am not typically a step masher but did use it for my LoDO attempts and it may be a factor.
- Lower boil-off. This doesn't require much testing, but if you leave more liquid in the kettle and maintain the level of sugar then your OG will be lower (probably not by more than a couple points though...)

This topic seems like a great one for Brulosophy to spend a bunch of time on. Each separate aspect could be tested in isolation, and depending on the results, as someone really tightens up their system and can keep the DO levels below 1 ppm throughout the entire process it could be used to show how stark the differences are between that refined process and a more standard one if all other variables can be kept to a minimum.

As frustrated as I can tell people get, remember we are doing this for a hobby. Yes, there are flaws in everyone's system, and we all have bias. But we're all heading to the same goal, the best beer we can possibly make!
 
Flatspin said:
- Use of SMB. A quick google search pointed out that SMB can be used to stop the enzymatic browning (oxidation) on a cut apple. Could it effect other enzymatic actions also?
Click to expand...

Interesting thought! I wonder if that could have an effect in mashing. In the case of the Exbeeriment, it doesn't seem that the wort was less fermentable since it finished lower than the standard sample. The extract seems to the the deficiency in the LoDo.
 
mabrungard said:
Interesting thought! I wonder if that could have an effect in mashing. In the case of the Exbeeriment, it doesn't seem that the wort was less fermentable since it finished lower than the standard sample. The extract seems to the the deficiency in the LoDo.
Click to expand...

DISCLAIMER: This is not me jumping to the defense of LoDo. It's just an observation from someone dabbling in the process.

It's not a deficiency in LoDo in general, because LoDo doesn't dictate a mash profile. Rather it's the result of a choice of the brewer and perhaps an assumption that in brewing LoDo you can't stir or otherwise ensure equal heat distribution.
For example, many of the progenitors of the style have recirculating mash systems, so they don't mention stirring because it's irrelevant in a recirculating system. For those of us who are dabbling in LoDo who have simpler systems, stirring gently while not breaking the surface tension of the wort (then capping) is perfectly acceptable.
I have gotten 75% brewhouse efficiency in the last two LoDo batches by step mashing (boiling water infusions) and stirring gently.
 
Cavpilot2000 said:
I'll pitch in.
LoDo aside, he was comparing one beer that had an OG/FG of 1.044/1.014 to another that was 1.035/1.006.
Given that they were pale beers without a lot of hops or specialty grains to hide behind, any two beers with that much discrepancy are two entirely different beers and should be easily distinguishable.

Plus, beer with "normal" gravity ranges, like 1.044/1.014 is going to be much more appealing than one with an unusual gravity range like 1.035/1.006.

There is nothing inherent in low O2 brewing that should cause that discrepancy in gravities (they were both no-sparge), so I strongly suspect that his setup created huge temperature stratification in the mash tun and he did not stir it to normalize, which resulted in such a stratification, and therefore horrible efficiency.

That difference alone basically invalidates the variable in question because you are comparing two beers that are significantly dissimilar even without the dissolved oxygen factor.

Note that I am not jumping to the defense of Low O2 or pushing any kind of agenda, I am just stating from an objective point of view that this is not single-variable experiment, and therefore is not valid in measuring the variable it was supposed to.
Click to expand...

While there have been some experiments that turned out indistinguishable with large gravity differences, I agree I'd like to see the experiment repeated with closer gravities. Based on the article, it seemed like the big give away in the flavor was excess sulfur.
 
mabrungard said:
Interesting thought! I wonder if that could have an effect in mashing. In the case of the Exbeeriment, it doesn't seem that the wort was less fermentable since it finished lower than the standard sample. The extract seems to the the deficiency in the LoDo.
Click to expand...

Seeing how you are the water guy I figured you might know. I recall they banned the use of SMB in salad bars as some people had reactions to it, not sure if the ban is still in place. Does the boiling process break it down so it would not be an issue for sensitive people or is the amount used too low to cause issues?
 
ba-brewer said:
Seeing how you are the water guy I figured you might know. I recall they banned the use of SMB in salad bars as some people had reactions to it, not sure if the ban is still in place. Does the boiling process break it down so it would not be an issue for sensitive people or is the amount used too low to cause issues?
Click to expand...

Any of the excess will get converted by the time you are in the fermentor.
 
The most interesting part of the exbeeriment for me was Charlie Bamforth's comment about avoiding SMB in the mash as it will convert into hydrogen sulfide and result in an unpleasant aroma. Is this always the case? Does the aroma depend only on the amount of SMB or are there factors one can influence to make it convert into a more acceptable compound in the finished beer?

I have my first LODO beer in the keg naturally carbonating right now and I haven't noticed any egg aroma so far. I used a no sparge mash with 50 ppm SMB.
 
masaba said:
The most interesting part of the exbeeriment for me was Charlie Bamforth's comment about avoiding SMB in the mash as it will convert into hydrogen sulfide and result in an unpleasant aroma. Is this always the case? Does the aroma depend only on the amount of SMB or are there factors one can influence to make it convert into a more acceptable compound in the finished beer?

I have my first LODO beer in the keg naturally carbonating right now and I haven't noticed any egg aroma so far. I used a no sparge mash with 50 ppm SMB.
Click to expand...

Same here.
No egg.
Unless he is referring to the sulfur element that is sometimes present in eggs.
 
I used SMB at 24ppm for mash, and 10ppm in sparge water with an eHERMS. I've not noticed any sulfur beyond usual levels typical in lager ferments, which faded away with lagering as usual. I've been very happy with the finished product.

I also read that LODO can reduce efficiency somewhat, somewhere in this thread I believe, and noticed that was true in my experience. My brewhouse efficiency goes from 92% to 90% when using LODO methods.
 
So if the Brulosophy experiment used 55 mg/l for a kolsch using no sparge, would that mean they potentially used double the recommended dose? I say that because the paper shows 100 mg/l as a start point for traditional setup and cut it in half for an ale. If no sparge lager is 50 mg/l, would that mean an ale needs to be between 20-30 mg/l? I find this strange and not sure why the taste test results are published knowing there is a sulfur issue with the beer and the gravity was missed by a significant margin. Maybe I'm missing something. I know my first and only attempt I used 40 mg/l for a BIAB no sparge ale and it was a complete sulfur bomb, but I did not experience efficiency issues. I plan on brewing a lager using 30 mg/l next time around.

Also, I noticed the DO readings would indicate that maybe more SMB should have been used. What is the possibility that the readings were incorrect from oxygen pickup during sampling?

I'd like to see a repeat cutting that dosage in half and using it on a system where successful results with LODO were reported. Until then, I think test results should be withheld. I say this as someone who has only made one attempt at LODO, but for me I didn't find the results of this experiment to really add anything useful into the LODO debate. I appreciate the time and effort it takes to conduct these experiments, but I think its clear there were issues in execution on the LODO batch. If we want to have discussion around that, let's leave the taste test out of the equation.
 
oujens said:
I'd like to see a repeat cutting that dosage in half and using it on a system where successful results with LODO were reported. Until then, I think test results should be withheld. I say this as someone who has only made one attempt at LODO, but for me I didn't find the results of this experiment to really add anything useful into the LODO debate. I appreciate the time and effort it takes to conduct these experiments, but I think its clear there were issues in execution on the LODO batch. If we want to have discussion around that, let's leave the taste test out of the equation.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm not on either side of the debate. My first attempt at LODO is fermenting right now. The Brulosophy exbeeriment should be considered invalid.

Seems like they were eager to get their findings out there, and cause a little ruckus. Maybe get some attention because it's a hot topic, when in actuality the idea of LODO isn't to create sulfur. Seems like his system was tight enough that he didn't need as much SMB. If he could dial in the amount of SMB needed to not create sulfur, then maybe I'd consider the exbeeriment valid.
 
Hey, it's a starting point. I don't think any true conclusion about anything was reached. Hopefully future publications on the topic will is a well tuned system and consult the LODO community a bit more.
Bit, they spent the time any money to do this and write it up. I don't think, nor to I believe they do, that this debunked or proved anything. But, it provides a starting point and learning experience for future tests
 
Jwin said:
Hey, it's a starting point. I don't think any true conclusion about anything was reached. Hopefully future publications on the topic will is a well tuned system and consult the LODO community a bit more.
Bit, they spent the time any money to do this and write it up. I don't think, nor to I believe they do, that this debunked or proved anything. But, it provides a starting point and learning experience for future tests
Click to expand...

I understand that, I just think a including a taste test is questionable. It might produce some good discussion as one tries to replicate the LODO process on their own. I don't want to come across as overly critical, but these experiments tend to carry a lot of weight with home brewers so it could potentially spread bad information. The LODO people put in a lot of time and resources themselves, so we should also be mindful how their work is being tested. I know first hand that trying to replicate the paper isn't as easy as boiling strike water and adding SMB, so I won't question the brewer's ability to do such a test. I do question why one would proceed with an experiment if he has reported a lack of success in previous batches noted by efficiency and sulfur issues.
 
oujens said:
I understand that, I just think a including a taste test is questionable. It might produce some good discussion as one tries to replicate the LODO process on their own. I don't want to come across as overly critical, but these experiments tend to carry a lot of weight with home brewers so it could potentially spread bad information. The LODO people put in a lot of time and resources themselves, so we should also be mindful how their work is being tested. I know first hand that trying to replicate the paper isn't as easy as boiling strike water and adding SMB, so I won't question the brewer's ability to do such a test. I do question why one would proceed with an experiment if he has reported a lack of success in previous batches noted by efficiency and sulfur issues.
Click to expand...

Hey, being critical is important. Brulosophy really touts the use of scientific method and criticism of experimental limitations and flaws is a major part of that! It's important to see it not as an argument but as a process.

I too agree that the OG/FG differences invalidate the results of the taste test. I think the true question that needs to be addressed is "what is the effect of low dissolved oxygen on flavour", rather than what is the effect of the process per se... i.e. with respect to other outcomes like low efficiency. That is certainly another valid question, but not one that should be addressed in the same experiment. As it stands the two questions are experimentally confounded.

Thanks to the Brulosophy guys for giving it a shot. I also agree that it's a starting point and would love to see a refined experiment before drawing any meaningful conclusions on taste.
 
Just thinking on how to go about this (on a different system... I'm assuming it won't be repeated on the same system any time soon)

... one option would be to brew the LODO batch first, given that efficiency seems be less predictable when starting out on a new LODO system. Then scale the non-LODO batch to target the same OG assuming one has their "standard" system dialed in enough to hit target OG reliably.
 
trav77 said:
Hey, being critical is important. Brulosophy really touts the use of scientific method and criticism of experimental limitations and flaws is a major part of that! It's important to see it not as an argument but as a process.

I too agree that the OG/FG differences invalidate the results of the taste test. I think the true question that needs to be addressed is "what is the effect of low dissolved oxygen on flavour", rather than what is the effect of the process per se... i.e. with respect to other outcomes like low efficiency. That is certainly another valid question, but not one that should be addressed in the same experiment. As it stands the two questions are experimentally confounded.

Thanks to the Brulosophy guys for giving it a shot. I also agree that it's a starting point and would love to see a refined experiment before drawing any meaningful conclusions on taste.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
oujens said:
I don't want to come across as overly critical, but these experiments tend to carry a lot of weight with home brewers so it could potentially spread bad information.
Click to expand...

this is my exact thought. I guess at this point I'm fairly outspoken, but the format of Brulosophy just doesn't cut it. there were clear issues with the experiment but the results were presented anyway. it often comes across as a pop-sci blog masquerading as proper scientific method, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth. although it's often easy to just say "but you didn't do X right!", in this case, it seems to be plain to see that, indeed, something was not done properly
 
It seems like if I wanted to lower my efficiency there are easier ways to go about it than LODO. :)

Cheers to the Brulosophy gang for looking at this. I think the study was well designed and the results presented clearly. A single study is never definitive, it's just one data point. Speaking for myself, it would take quite a bit of adjustment for me to fully incorporate LODO. I'm not going to pull the trigger unless and until I see some valid evidence that it makes substantially better beer. So I'm very interesting in seeing more tests published.
 
oujens said:
I understand that, I just think a including a taste test is questionable. ...
Click to expand...

The whole point of LoDO is that it is supposed to produce better tasting beer. You just can't do a comparison experiment and not include a taste test. The only thing really definitive in this exbeeriment is they proved that the LoDO process is capable of creating sulfur flavors in the beer in some instances. I very much doubt the SG difference had anything to do with the creation of the sulfur flavors.

Now if the sulfur wasn't present, then if the non-LoDO beer was perceived as better, then the SG difference could be called into question, as far as affecting the taste test results.

Brew on :mug:
 
RPIScotty said:
Any of the excess will get converted by the time you are in the fermentor.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I reread the LODO pdf and it does say excess sulfites are scrubbed during boiling and fermentation. They imply a sulfite level inline with commercial beer of about 10-15ppm is common in ale in and lager.
 
ba-brewer said:
Thanks. I reread the LODO pdf and it does say excess sulfites are scrubbed during boiling and fermentation. They imply a sulfite level inline with commercial beer of about 10-15ppm is common in ale in and lager.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I believe those are typically yeast derived sulfites. They help at packaging.
 
Isn't the whole idea is that completely reworking your brewhouse for LODO is going to make a different beer? The sulfur differences are peculiar, though.
 

Similar threads

J
Best dry yeast for a German Pils?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Dog House Brew
Dog House Brew
K
Added Boil Hops at End By Accident...
Replies
16
Views
817
KookyBrewsky
K
flipster
Hello from the Bavarian alpine foothills
Replies
14
Views
567
flipster
flipster
ghettoworm
Leaky Mash Tun
Replies
20
Views
557
Bobby_M
Bobby_M
beersk
Domestic Ingredients
2
Replies
54
Views
2K
beersk
beersk
InkBird 300

Latest posts

Back
Top