Is My Aeration Technique Okay?

[corypedia]

so currently to aerate my wort, i use a paint mixer attached to my drill. after cooling the wort, i insert the paint mixer into my brew kettle, mix it up nice and good, then transfer via the ball valve into my carboy.

Is this okay to do? Or should I be aerating it while in the carboy?

 

[azfyb]

You want to do more than mix it up. Really agitate it, mixing air in. But yeah, do that then transfer.

 

[GHBWNY]

so currently to aerate my wort, i use a paint mixer attached to my drill. after cooling the wort, i insert the paint mixer into my brew kettle, mix it up nice and good, then transfer via the ball valve into my carboy.

Is this okay to do? Or should I be aerating it while in the carboy?

Check the thread: "How Do You Aerate?" 146 replies. I think you'll find your answer there.

 

[corypedia]

You want to do more than mix it up. Really agitate it, mixing air in. But yeah, do that then transfer.

Oh i let the drill rip. several inches of foam...then transfer.

 

[MegaMania]

Sounds Aerated enough, I used a whisk in a high gravity brew about 1.085 og, that was enough oxygen for a complete fermentation using us05 yeast, Id imagine a powertool is more effecient than I.

 

[g-star]

While these methods are adequate for making beer, they are not optimal if your goal is to make the best beer possible.

No matter what technique you apply with air, you'll never get above 8ppm oxygen in your wort due to the fact that air is only 21% oxygen. This is enough for low gravity ales, but high gravity ales and all lagers require 10-14ppm O2. This can only be achieved by using pure oxygen.

Investment in an O2 setup will significantly improve the quality of all your beer.

 

[joebob296]

but high gravity ales and all lagers require 10-14ppm O2. This can only be achieved by using pure oxygen.

Do you have a source? I'd like to read about this.

 

[Derek1985]

Do you have a source? I'd like to read about this.

+1. I always hear this but have never seen any information supporting it.

I always found this article top be very interesting:

http://www.morebeer.com/articles/oxygen_in_fermentation

 

[Calder]

+1. I always hear this but have never seen any information supporting it.

I always found this article top be very interesting:

http://www.morebeer.com/articles/oxygen_in_fermentation

While I also question if O2 aeration is really necessary, if you read the whole article, I think you will find it actually supports the argument for high levels of O2 to produce better and more complete fermentations. An exert from it:

"Having said all this, however, it is rare for a home brewer to obtain the optimal pitching rate, and aeration is therefore generally the rule, particularly if the brewer wishes to obtain reasonable attenuation of a very heavy wort. In the case of strong ales such as barleywines, for example, esters are generally seen as desirable, as is a very high concentration of ethanol. Because high attenuation is the main goal with this style and esters are not really a problem, the combination of a high pitching rate and wort aeration is likely to produce the best results. Keep in mind, though, that oxygen is less soluble (up to 15% less) in worts of very high gravity, so you will generally need to aerate these worts for a longer time than usual to obtain saturation; or, better yet, use pure oxygen.

Because commercial breweries recycle their yeast by repitching rather than using starter cultures, they also generally find it most convenient to aerate the cold bitter wort. Wort aeration increases the rate and extent of yeast growth and hence decreases lag time and results in a larger population of cells. This in turn generally leads to more complete attenuation and fewer undesirable flavors in the finished beer"

And if I read the article correctly, when it says "optimal pitching rate", I think it is talking about a starter that already has the full population for fermentation - no reproduction required. In Brewers terms, 'optimal' pitching rate is roughly a sixth of the cells required for fermenting the beer, to have reproduction occur.


I do not use O2, and have not had any issues with high gravity beers. I do believe a best practice for anyone not using oxygen is to aerate the wort as well as they can ....... and then do it again.

For high gravity beers, I re-aerate the wort after about 8 to 12 hours. The original entrained O2 has either been used or come out of solution (even if you use O2), as I have seen this mentioned in a number of books, seems to work for me, and not given any issues.

 

[Derek1985]

I do not use O2, and have not had any issues with high gravity beers. I do believe a best practice for anyone not using oxygen is to aerate the wort as well as they can ....... and then do it again.

For high gravity beers, I re-aerate the wort after about 8 to 12 hours. The original entrained O2 has either been used or come out of solution (even if you use O2), as I have seen this mentioned in a number of books, seems to work for me, and not given any issues.

I think you correctly presented the point from the article I was trying to shed light on.

I am in total agreement with your method and have never really seen anything substantial (scientific) that says Pure O2 at "blah blah blah" time for "blah blah blah" minutes does anything more than manual aeration.

 

[g-star]

I am in total agreement with your method and have never really seen anything substantial (scientific) that says Pure O2 at "blah blah blah" time for "blah blah blah" minutes does anything more than manual aeration.

Wrong:

https://www.wyeastlab.com/hb_oxygenation.cfm

 

[Derek1985]

Wrong:

https://www.wyeastlab.com/hb_oxygenation.cfm

No sources.

Say what you want about the article I posted from MoreBeer but they at least posted sources for their information.

Not to say that the Wyeast info is wrong, because like you, I would tend to side with a company renowned for its knowledge of yeast and all its intricacies.

A technical document or discussion without sources is of little merit on its own.

And for the record, I am not questioning whether oxygen is necessary, I am questioning whether injection of Pure O2 is necessary. I don't think it is. It just has advantages that manual aeration doesn't.

You should read articles you cite and relate them to the original post before you respond with one word answers that by themselves also have little or no merit.

 

[Gameface]

Blind taste tests with O2 aeration and manual aeration don't generally produce conclusive results.

I aerate with pure O2, but let's not get all high and mighty and act like people aren't making good beer unless they aerate with pure O2.

Also, attenuation has almost nothing to do with pitch rate or level of O2 aeration. The yeast will eat the sugar eventually. The only possible exception might be with very big beers that get to a high abv while there is still significant fermentable sugar left. But underpitching or poor aeration can cause the yeast to produce excessive esters and phenolics.

 

[Derek1985]

Blind taste tests with O2 aeration and manual aeration don't generally produce conclusive results.

I aerate with pure O2, but let's not get all high and mighty and act like people aren't making good beer unless they aerate with pure O2.

Also, attenuation has almost nothing to do with pitch rate or level of O2 aeration. The yeast will eat the sugar eventually. The only possible exception might be with very big beers that get to a high abv while there is still significant fermentable sugar left. But underpitching or poor aeration can cause the yeast to produce excessive esters and phenolics.

Very well put.

 

[g-star]

No sources.

Say what you want about the article I posted from MoreBeer but they at least posted sources for their information.

Not to say that the Wyeast info is wrong, because like you, I would tend to side with a company renowned for its knowledge of yeast and all its intricacies.

A technical document or discussion without sources is of little merit on its own.

And for the record, I am not questioning whether oxygen is necessary, I am questioning whether injection of Pure O2 is necessary. I don't think it is. It just has advantages that manual aeration doesn't.

You should read articles you cite and relate them to the original post before you respond with one word answers that by themselves also have little or no merit.

Recommend you read "Yeast" by Zainisheff and White, specifically pages 77-84 where they go into great detail about the O2 requirements of different types of worts, and controlled tests that have been done showing how only using air is woefully inadequate in many (but not all) cases.

They cite multiple primary peer-reviewed journal sources in the text that I'm not going to bother listing here.

The point that some are missing is that pure oxygen is not necessary to make beer, but it is necessary to make the best beer possible. A 1.090 doppelbock made with the shake and pray method may ferment out, but it will be inferior to one in which the proper O2 levels were obtained at the time of pitching by injecting pure oxygen to levels of 10-14ppm.

The science is sound and the logic is simple. High gravity ale worts and all lagers require a high pitch rate and need high levels of oxygen to produce an adequate amount of sterols for healthy replication. Those levels have been determined by experiment to be > 8ppm, which can never be obtained by air alone due to the limited amount of oxygen present in air by nature.

 

[Derek1985]

They cite multiple primary peer-reviewed journal sources in the text that I'm not going to bother listing here.

These sources cited say that the best tasting beer is made with O2 injection?

The point that some are missing is that pure oxygen is not necessary to make beer, but it is necessary to make the best beer possible. A 1.090 doppelbock made with the shake and pray method may ferment out, but it will be inferior to one in which the proper O2 levels were obtained at the time of pitching by injecting pure oxygen to levels of 10-14ppm.

And by best beer possible I'm assuming you mean best taste?

Explain to me how on earth, in the absence of exhaustive blind taste testing and summation of those test results does one quantify this?

Taste, like sound, is subjective. It's like saying, "You can make good sounds with a Fender Twin Reverb but if you want to make the best sounds possible, you've got to use a Marshall Superlead."

The science is sound and the logic is simple. High gravity ale worts and all lagers require a high pitch rate and need high levels of oxygen to produce an adequate amount of sterols for healthy replication. Those levels have been determined by experiment to be > 8ppm, which can never be obtained by air alone due to the limited amount of oxygen present in air by nature.

I grasp the science and understand your logic but how does this translate into taste?

I hate to beat a dead horse, as this topic and all the threads relating to it eventually end up in the same stalemate, but I've normally seen it go something like this:

OP states that he does it like this. Asks for advice. People come on and say, "Hey man, works great for me and I don't see why it wouldn't for you." Great news right? Then, invariably, someone gets on and says, "You know, that's ok if you just want to make good beer, but if you want to make great beer......"

You can cite all the brewing books in the world, and unless one says in black and white that a certain method makes better tasting beer, you'd be hard pressed to convince me that one method works wonders over another.

To the OP: if your method works for you, keep Rockin' and Rollin'. Sorry to have derailed the thread.

 

[joebob296]

Recommend you read "Yeast" by Zainisheff and White, specifically pages 77-84 where they go into great detail about the O2 requirements of different types of worts, and controlled tests that have been done showing how only using air is woefully inadequate in many (but not all) cases.



They cite multiple primary peer-reviewed journal sources in the text that I'm not going to bother listing here.



The point that some are missing is that pure oxygen is not necessary to make beer, but it is necessary to make the best beer possible. A 1.090 doppelbock made with the shake and pray method may ferment out, but it will be inferior to one in which the proper O2 levels were obtained at the time of pitching by injecting pure oxygen to levels of 10-14ppm.



The science is sound and the logic is simple. High gravity ale worts and all lagers require a high pitch rate and need high levels of oxygen to produce an adequate amount of sterols for healthy replication. Those levels have been determined by experiment to be > 8ppm, which can never be obtained by air alone due to the limited amount of oxygen present in air by nature.

Ha! I just bought this book. And have noted the pages you mentioned. I'm not that far yet but they are marked waiting for me to read them.

 

[Mismost]

I want an oxygen setup because I like the little red bottles with knobs and hoses and bubbles...Oh My! There is a cool factor. Not to mention, I hate stirring and stirring...unless it's a chilli cook off.

 

[g-star]

You can cite all the brewing books in the world, and unless one says in black and white that a certain method makes better tasting beer, you'd be hard pressed to convince me that one method works wonders over another.

We trust theory and experiment to provide objective truths, which shed light on subjective matters like taste. When those subjective opinions reach a general consensus, reasonable conclusions may be inferred. These oxygenation practices are common among the best breweries in the world...why the willful ignorance?

Have you have made the same beer and tried both methods of introducing oxygen, and have reached the conclusion that there is no discernible difference in taste? Or are you just happy with how your beer has turned out with the use of plain air?

 

[Derek1985]

We trust theory and experiment to provide objective truths, which shed light on subjective matters like taste. When those subjective opinions reach a general consensus, reasonable conclusions may be inferred. These oxygenation practices are common among the best breweries in the world...why the willful ignorance?

Have you have made the same beer and tried both methods of introducing oxygen, and have reached the conclusion that there is no discernible difference in taste? Or are you just happy with how your beer has turned out with the use of plain air?

Please let me start by saying that if my tone seems accusatory, or at all sharp, I apologize. Text can be a rather emotionless way of conveying information. I've been treating this as open discussion and not anything else. I hope that comes through.

While I admire your way with words, in particular the two very elegant first sentences above, I'd have to delve deeper into the theories, experiments and "general consensus" your speaking about before I took any of it with more than a grain of salt.

I'm of the opinion that method of aeration is a matter of preference and not best practice. Brewers should use the method that works for them and gives best results for them.

That's just my opinion. At your suggestion I did read the pages you noted from JZ and Chris White's book, and while the argument is compelling, there are many counterpoints, both in the litany of brewing literature, as well as personal experience from brewer's, that would suggest truly "great" beer is attainable through many different methods.

 

[g-star]

If you can't be swayed by facts, data, evidence, and widely accepted practice across the world, well then I guess that's your perogative.

I will respectfully ask again though - Have you made the same beer using both methods of introducing oxygen, and have reached the conclusion that there is no discernible difference in the final product?

 

[Gameface]

If you can't be swayed by facts, data, evidence, and widely accepted practice across the world, well then I guess that's your perogative.

I will respectfully ask again though - Have you made the same beer using both methods of introducing oxygen, and have reached the conclusion that there is no discernible difference in the final product?

I haven't done that side by side. I've only read here on HBT about people who have and who have done blind taste tests and were not able to detect a difference.

I've worked with a lot of engineers. I'm used to being shown charts and graphs that show differences, yet never seeing a difference in the end result. Yes, there is a measurable, quantifiable difference. There is often not a practical difference.

 

[Derek1985]

...I'm used to being shown charts and graphs that show differences, yet never seeing a difference in the end result. Yes, there is a measurable, quantifiable difference. There is often not a practical difference.

I agree. The measurable does not necessarilly correlate to the perceptible.

To answer the question respectfully posed to me prior: No, I have not personally done a split batch brew using both methods but have had the chance to taste one that was and ultimately they both tasted great.

It boils down to a brewer by brewer basis as to what method to use. I just don't agree with anybody going around saying, "Your beer is good but not great unless you use Pure O2."

 

[Gameface]

If the argument is that pure O2 produces more healthy yeast, then I agree 100%. But there is a point at which one can achieve all the healthy yeast they need without the use of pure O2. There is more than one way to get there.

I've been the kind of brewer that wants all the gadgets and is happy to mke brewing a little more complicated and equipment intensive. I use pure O2. I make large starters in 5L flasks on a stir plate. I have a 3 vessel eHERMS system and make 10g batches. I have fermentation chambers with dual stage temp controllers. I think I make pretty good beer.

I work with a guy who makes extract kits. No temp control. Dry yeast. Some of his beer is really, really good. I kind of had to reevaluate many of my assumptions that the reason I was making good beer was all these complicated techniques I had adopted. I think all these things help, and I'm not going to go back the other way and simplify what I'm doing, but I just had to admit that making good beer doesn't depend on having all this gear. It can help. It certainly give the brewer more control over the outcome. But good beer can and is made without it.

 

[jwalk4]

Wait. Never mind.

 

[Derek1985]

Can anyone suggest a 'toned down' hop amount and schedule for a cleaner tasting, less hop forward, Amber?

Try the recipe section.

 

[g-star]

To answer the question respectfully posed to me prior: No, I have not personally done a split batch brew using both methods

We've beaten this to death, but I will leave you with the suggestion that you actually pick up an O2 system, re-brew some of your favorite recipes using pure oxygen, and make conclusions based on more than a bias towards your own personal convention. You might be surprised at the results.

I was once a skeptic too, but the differences in quality I saw going from an aquarium pump to pure oxygen were too great to ignore. I believe it was a key factor in getting my beers to score consistently in the 35 - 40 range, and helped me immensely in competitions. Best of luck to you.

 

[Derek1985]

We've beaten this to death, but I will leave you with the suggestion that you actually pick up an O2 system, re-brew some of your favorite recipes using pure oxygen, and make conclusions based on more than a bias towards your own personal convention. You might be surprised at the results.



I was once a skeptic too, but the differences in quality I saw going from an aquarium pump to pure oxygen were too great to ignore. I believe it was a key factor in getting my beers to score consistently in the 35 - 40 range, and helped me immensely in competitions. Best of luck to you.

To each their own. I make my beer for myself and my personal consumption. If it were a matter of scoring better at competitions I could see the point.

As it stands I do what works for me.

I will say this: if I had a more sophisticated system and did larger batches I could definitely see the need for a more convenient source of getting oxygen to the beer.

Also, none of this was a personal attack on you. You have obviously had very strong results with O2 and you have every right to share that and champion the method.

Best of luck to you as well and if I do begin using O2, I'll be sure to give you the opportunity to say I told you so!

 

[Gameface]

I'd like to let this die, but if using pure O2 made a night and day difference in your beer then it's likely you were really missing the mark on something else before you started using pure O2 to compensate fr whatever it was/is.

I do use pure O2. It did not make a night and day difference in my beer. I feel like it made a marginal, incremental difference, mostly in how fast fermentation took off and allowing me to ferment at temps below the manufacturer's recommendations.

 

[g-star]

I'd like to let this die, but if using pure O2 made a night and day difference in your beer then it's likely you were really missing the mark on something else before you started using pure O2 to compensate fr whatever it was/is.

Nope. All other variables were the same. If you couldn't tell, I'm a science guy and would never experiment any other way. The differences were clearly related to getting the proper concentration of oxygen in the wort.

Nonetheless, I can accept that you personally may be insensitive to the benefits of this approach.

 

[Gameface]

Nope. All other variables were the same. If you couldn't tell, I'm a science guy and would never experiment any other way. The differences were clearly related to getting the proper concentration of oxygen in the wort.

Nonetheless, I can accept that you personally may be insensitive to the benefits of this approach.

Yeah, that's the point. All other variables were the same. You were doing something else inadequately and thus using pure O2 solved the problem.

The whole point I've been making is that there are multiple ways to solve the problem. Using pure O2 is not the only way to make better beer.

But let's get down to it. What does pure O2 do?

It provides greater O2 concentration in the wort. O2 allows yeast to reproduce much more rapidly, reducing the lag phase and potentially reducing "stress" on the yeast and resulting in a healthier overall yeast population.

Are you unable to see that there are a few different ways to achieve a large healthy yeast population?

 

[Derek1985]

Yeah, that's the point. All other variables were the same. You were doing something else inadequately and thus using pure O2 solved the problem.

The whole point I've been making is that there are multiple ways to solve the problem. Using pure O2 is not the only way to make better beer.

But let's get down to it. What does pure O2 do?

It provides greater O2 concentration in the wort. O2 allows yeast to reproduce much more rapidly, reducing the lag phase and potentially reducing "stress" on the yeast and resulting in a healthier overall yeast population.

Are you unable to see that there are a few different ways to achieve a large healthy yeast population?

I think this is ultimately what I was trying to get at but could not get across in an intelligent manner.

I have always been under the assumption that a proper starter and pitch of the right size coupled with saturation (8 ppm) was adequate to make excellent beer.

 

[g-star]

Yeah, that's the point. All other variables were the same. You were doing something else inadequately and thus using pure O2 solved the problem.

The whole point I've been making is that there are multiple ways to solve the problem. Using pure O2 is not the only way to make better beer.

Don't think so. Prior to O2, was making stir-plate starters and pitching 1M cells/ml/*Plato for ales and 2M cells/ml/*Plato for lagers. Pitch temps and temp control were the same (controlled to within 1F of target).

The only difference is that I went from using an aquarium pump with a sintered stone for 30min to pure O2 with a sintered stone for 60-90sec. Boom, better beer.

Of course pure O2 is not the only way to make better beer. It is the most effective, rapid, and fool-proof way to make ensure healthy yeast of all other options listed, particularly for high gravity ales and all lagers. Healthy yeast generally produce the best tasting beers, assuming recipe and wort production are sound. Not sure why this is so difficult for many to accept.