John Palmer on LODO

[day_trippr]

For real?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/392169034X/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

Pricey, but at least graspable...
https://www.siebelinstitute.com/products/bookstore/technology-brewing-and-malting/

 

[RevKev]

Don't cite a secondary source, interpret your own meaning from primary sources. Or do your own experiments, when others do experiments and keep pour notes it's the equivalent of ****ting on a brick and calling it gold

These textbooks are even more outrageous than those assigned to me during grad school... I hope these "professionals" are better people than they seem

 

[mongoose33]

For real?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/392169034X/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

Pricey, but at least graspable...
https://www.siebelinstitute.com/products/bookstore/technology-brewing-and-malting/

Or this:

https://www.vlb-berlin.org/en/technology-brewing-and-malting

It's 149 euros. At today's exchange rate that's about $165.

I wonder if I can find this via interlibrary loan....

 

[day_trippr]

Not sure this thread has legs so I'll burn a post here instead of the "epic" thread (which I'm only up to reply #490 )

I am intrigued by oxidation avoidance - on both sides. I've been demonstrably rather OC about the cold side and as I've refined my process and equipment the benefits have been plainly evident - particularly notable in retention of color and prominence of desired characters over time.

The hot side, otoh, I've only done the most obvious of oxidation avoidance techniques, mostly due to other intentions. I've always conditioned my grain before milling (because it makes lautering so much easier) which also means I mill brew day morning because I'm not looking for a lacto fest. I underlet my mash because it's actually convenient given the design of my rig. I recirculate with a return that rests directly atop the wort because that's how an autosparge works. And the HLT-to-BK transfer is via the recirculation port at the bottom of the BK that was there anyway. Finally, my BS2 equipment profile is set for 11.1% boil-off rate because that's what it worked out to after a few brews and it seemed vigorous enough.

So, clearly not a lot of effort so far.

I plan on making a point on the next batch to pre-boil my strike and sparge liquor, chill quickly before strike, dial my boil down a scoche, and see if I can come up with a mash cap that fits my process (with an autosparge that could be a challenge) and see what happens.

Won't be a Helles though I'm thinking I need a Saison on tap.

I might be able to get access to an O2 meter. Need to work on that...

Cheers!

 

[MSK_Chess]

John Palmer has a point though, the Germans and the Czechs especially have been making top notch Pilsners and Lagers for hundreds of years without adding SMB to their water and mashing and boiling in large copper vessels. Furthermore Bohemian malt is not as modified as other European malts and will definitely require additional rest. Pilsen water is so soft that there is not enough ions to facilitate a chemical reaction from the malts themselves to reach optimal Ph thus they overcame this with the acid rest which we know is an anti-oxidant. Furthermore the beers were and are still made with a decoction mash schedule, a double or triple decoction which I think is largely responsible for the flavour and anti-oxidisation of the sweet wort (although I have no empirical evidence that this later claim is the case) It seems logical to me that if you want to brew beers like the Germans and the Czechs follow their procedures.

 

[MSK_Chess]

The biggest "bang for your buck" modifications are the cheapest to implement. Underletting the mash costs you no additional money. Milling your grain (assuming you have a mill) as close to dough in as possible costs you no money. Adding a mash cap can be as cheap as an extra pot lid that floats on the mash or a correctly sized SS cake pan that floats. Sodium metabisulfite is also very cheap. Gently stirring to avoid splashing and gentle transfers from kettle to kettle cost you no extra money. Tight hose connections, etc. should be no extra cost as well.

Milling just before dough + underletting the mash + mash cap + pre-boiling + tight connections + gentle stirring + gentle transfers = the potential for no hot side Oxygen uptake.

Now everyone is not going to start at that point which make metabisulfite a key point of active Oxygen scavenging until you can get your system tight enough to start reducing dose.

It's a marathon, not a sprint.

Sure I like these ideas. Not sure what a mash cap is though.

 

[Big Monk]

John Palmer has a point though, the Germans and the Czechs especially have been making top notch Pilsners and Lagers for hundreds of years without adding SMB to their water and mashing in large copper vessels. Furthermore Bohemian malt is not as modified as other European malts and will definitely require additional rest. Pilsen water is so soft that there is not enough ions to facilitate a chemical reaction from the malts themselves to reach optimal Ph thus they overcame this with the acid rest which we know is an anti-oxidant. Furthermore the beers were and are still made with a decoction mash schedule, a double or triple decoction which I think is largely responsible for the flavour and anti-oxidisation of the sweet wort (although I have no empirical evidence that this later claim is the case) It seems logical to me that if you want to brew beers like the Germans and the Czechs follow their procedures.

1.) They don't use sodium metabisulfite. That is a homebrew hack to add active oxygen scavenging to the mix. They are merely using the physics of large scale brewing (square-cube law) to prevent the uptake of Oxygen. They do, however, De-aerate their water.

2.) They may have brewed for hundreds of years in copper, and there are many regional and larger scale breweries that still do, I'm sure, but the beer that the German macros are making now is not the same as even 50 years ago so the whole "they've always done it this way" argument doesn't hold as much weight as one would like. Add in the fact that even some of the copper vessels you see in the present day are actually SS line and...

3.) I'm sure the Czechs and some German brewers are still using decoction but many have left it behind in favor of the step mash. Also remember that decoction on the large scale is drastically different than on our scale. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

4.) Not sure why an Acid rest is considered an anti-oxidant but soft water usually entails just adding mineral acid or sauergut, which in most commercial breweries is going to be readily available. Having read the article you are referencing on enzymatic browning, I think it can be said that it is the presence of Oxygen that initiates that reaction, so eliminating Oxygen stops the browning at its source. My take at least. It all goes back to Oxygen mitigation. It is talked about clear as day all the way to DeClerck in "A Textbook of Brewing" which is 75+ years old.

At the end of the day I'm sure all the discussion is good and gets the ideas out there to people who are willing to discuss it with this level of detail. There is, however, still a great deal of misinformation and confusion out there about the concepts of Low Oxygen brewing. There are a ton of people, homebrewers and professionals alike way more knowledgeable than I am.

 

[MSK_Chess]

1.) They don't use sodium metabisulfite. That is a homebrew hack to add active oxygen scavenging to the mix. They are merely using the physics of large scale brewing (square-cube law) to prevent the uptake of Oxygen. They do, however, De-aerate their water.

2.) They may have brewed for hundreds of years in copper, and there are many regional and larger scale breweries that still do, I'm sure, but the beer that the German macros are making now is not the same as even 50 years ago so the whole "they've always done it this way" argument doesn't hold as much weight as one would like. Add in the fact that even some of the copper vessels you see in the present day are actually SS line and...

3.) I'm sure the Czechs and some German brewers are still using decoction but many have left it behind in favor of the step mash. Also remember that decoction on the large scale is drastically different than on our scale. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

4.) Not sure why an Acid rest is considered an anti-oxidant but soft water usually entails just adding mineral acid or sauergut, which in most commercial breweries is going to be readily available. Having read the article you are referencing on enzymatic browning, I think it can be said that it is the presence of Oxygen that initiates that reaction, so eliminating Oxygen stops the browning at its source. My take at least. It all goes back to Oxygen mitigation. It is talked about clear as day all the way to DeClerck in "A Textbook of Brewing" which is 75+ years old.

At the end of the day I'm sure all the discussion is good and gets the ideas out there to people who are willing to discuss it with this level of detail. There is, however, still a great deal of misinformation and confusion out there about the concepts of Low Oxygen brewing. There are a ton of people, homebrewers and professionals alike way more knowledgeable than I am.

Ok I understand. Let me address point no.4 first.

In keeping with the traditional aspect of brewing, you might want to revive the acid rest. When you start a mash at between 86F and 122F (30 - 50C), phytic acid forms and naturally lowers the mash pH. Phytic acid has been shown to inhibit the action of PPO (polyphenol oxidase) and significantly lower enzymatic browning reactions. Maybe those old brewers knew more than they let on? - http://immaculatebrewery.com/oxygen-and-mashing/#fn:11 (EDIT. I see you have already addressed this ]

As for decoction mashing v step mash (I personally do step mashing), yes its understood that 'technically' there is no need to do a decoction mash, however many breweries still do it because it imparts a more robust flavour from compounds in the husks and melanoidin reactions during the boiling of the decoction. It appears to me that because dissolved oxygen levels are temperature dependent the decoction mash should be an excellent way to make a LODO beer because we are essentially de-oxidising the wort at every step.

Yes sharing information is great and one must appreciate the efforts that you and other guys are making in trying to help us identify areas that we can improve upon. I still don't really understand why the subject is so controversial and divisive though.

 

[Big Monk]

As for decoction mashing v step mash (I personally do step mashing), yes its understood that 'technically' there is no need to do a decoction mash, however many breweries still do it because it imparts a more robust flavour from compounds in the husks and melanoidin reactions during the boiling of the decoction. It appears to me that because dissolved oxygen levels are temperature dependent the decoction mash should be an excellent way to make a LODO beer because we are essentially de-oxidising the wort at every step.

The problem is that homebrewers have to physically remove a portion of the grist for decoction. This exposes the wort to Oxygen pre- and post-decoction. Large scale purveyors of the decoction are pulling their decoctions from below and returning it there as well.

So the opposite of what you propose above is true.

 

[MSK_Chess]

The problem is that homebrewers have to physically remove a portion of the grist for decoction. This exposes the wort to Oxygen pre- and post-decoction. Large scale purveyors of the decoction are pulling their decoctions from below and returning it there as well.

So the opposite of what you propose above is true.

Yes this is absolutely true but we are going to boil the decoction after pulling the wort. If we take a two stage enhanced decoction, dough in at acid rest using pre boiled water and underletting etc then when the decoction is pulled, heated, rested it will be boiled. When some of it is returned to the main mash the temperature will rise driving out dissolved oxygen in the main mash while the rest of the decoction boils. This is added again to the main mash to facilitate reaching scarification level again raising the temperature and driving out any dissolved oxygen. When it is pulled again for the last time, it will be boiled and returned to the main mash to reach mash out. Thus even though we are physically removing the decoction (making oxygenation possible thorough surface aeration) We are compensating by raising the temperature at every stage which should drive out dissolved oxygen at least in theory.

Id love to see some data on dissolved oxygen at the end of a decoction mash.

 

[Big Monk]

Yes this is absolutely true but we are going to boil the decoction after pulling the wort. If we take a two stage enhanced decoction, dough in at acid rest using pre boiled water and underletting etc then when the decoction is pulled, heated, rested it will be boiled. When some of it is returned to the main mash the temperature will rise driving out dissolved oxygen in the main mash while the rest of the decoction boils. This is added again to the main mash to facilitate reaching scarification level again raising the temperature and driving out any dissolved oxygen. When it is pulled again for the last time, it will be boiled and returned to the main mash to reach mash out. Thus even though we are physically removing the decoction (making oxygenation possible thorough surface aeration) We are compensating by raising the temperature at every stage which should drive out dissolved oxygen at least in theory.

Id love to see some data on dissolved oxygen at the end of a decoction mash.

The "damage", i.e. exposure to dissolved O2, is already done by the point you are referencing. The solubility of dissolved oxygen at mashing temperatures is such that it doesn't take very long to get to the point of no return. If you can't preserve the malt flavors you are after by limiting the dissolved O2 below 1 ppm (or less) on the hot side, then it's all for naught.

That's not to say it isn't worth it, but pulling multiple decoctions is not going to help the effort. You aren't compensating for anything at each decoction stage, you are merely exposing the wort to dissolved oxygen, letting it damage the flavors you've been working to keep, then driving it off.

All the original members and purveyors of these methods at the homebrew level (The original GBF members) gave up on decoctions for just these reasons, despite the romantic notions about its usefulness or necessity.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't decoct if that's your desire, just know that it's working against you if you are pursuing Low Oxygen brewing methods.

 

[Big Monk]

Sure I like these ideas. Not sure what a mash cap is though.

A mash cap is just that: either a floating lid (resting and floating directly on the mash) or a fixed lid with a recirculation port (LocLine is popular) and return line that sits below the liquid line.

A mash cap is essentially a physical means by which to decrease the surface area of the exposed wort. In doing this you invoke what is naturally occurring in larger vessels, i.e. low surface area in comparison to overall volume decreases O2 solubility.

 

[Weezy]

Preach on Mr. Miscavige!

 

[MSK_Chess]

The "damage", i.e. exposure to dissolved O2, is already done by the point you are referencing. The solubility of dissolved oxygen at mashing temperatures is such that it doesn't take very long to get to the point of no return. If you can't preserve the malt flavors you are after by limiting the dissolved O2 below 1 ppm (or less) on the hot side, then it's all for naught.

That's not to say it isn't worth it, but pulling multiple decoctions is not going to help the effort. You aren't compensating for anything at each decoction stage, you are merely exposing the wort to dissolved oxygen, letting it damage the flavors you've been working to keep, then driving it off.

All the original members and purveyors of these methods at the homebrew level (The original GBF members) gave up on decoctions for just these reasons, despite the romantic notions about its usefulness or necessity.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't decoct if that's your desire, just know that it's working against you if you are pursuing Low Oxygen brewing methods.

Do you have any data for dissolved oxygen in a decotion mash?

Actually there are no romantic notions, I have already stated that decoction is done to enhance flavours due to compounds in the husks and melanoidin reaction in the boil. Flavour is what we are interested in, right? Nothing romantic about it nor do I get the feeling that LODO brewing as it stands would be able to enhance or replicate these flavours unless of course there is evidence to the contrary.

The antioxidant activity and other biological effects of melanoidins from real foods and model systems have been widely studied -
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814611004572

 

[Big Monk]

Preach on Mr. Miscavige!

Not my ideas. You can read through the copious amounts of background information, professional brewing textbooks, etc.

Here are just a sampling of them, compiled so that you don't have to do any heavy lifting:

http://www.lowoxygenbrewing.com/uncategorized/list-of-brewing-references/

Again, no actual or ideological dog in the race. Just looking to make the best beer possible. We don't profit from this or ask anything from anybody other than to read the literature and give it a fair shake. That's if you want to. If you don't then that's fine as well.

 

[Big Monk]

Do you have any data for dissolved oxygen in a decotion mash?

Actually there are no romantic notions, I have already stated that decoction is done to enhance flavours due to compounds in the husks and melanoidin reaction in the boil. Flavour is what we are interested in, right? Nothing romantic about it nor do I get the feeling that LODO brewing as it stands would be able to enhance or replicate these flavours unless of course there is evidence to the contrary.

The antioxidant activity and other biological effects of melanoidins from real foods and model systems have been widely studied -
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814611004572

I think that article is talking about antioxidant properties for people.

Regardless, everyone should brew how they want to get the results they desire. Pure and simple.

 

[MSK_Chess]

I think that article is talking about antioxidant properties for people.

Regardless, everyone should brew how they want to get the results they desire. Pure and simple.

Lol i think you are correct yes indeed, live and let live!

 

[MSK_Chess]

Preach on Mr. Miscavige!

I had to look him up, never heard of him.

 

[Big Monk]

I had to look him up, never heard of him.

Another Scientology reference.

 

[MSK_Chess]

I was reading the pdf that you cited, it makes for very interesting reading although it makes some very bold claims. I came across this.

Indeed, beers from Kirin to Guinness to even Budweiser
have the characteristic low-oxygen flavor if you look for it.

Are you really trying to provide an impetus by citing Guinness and Budweiser and the taste of macro beers some of which I would not have in my house let alone serve to guests? We homebrewers make much tastier stouts than Guinness and much tastier beers than Budweiser. When I started homebrewing I was amazed at how tasty the beers were in comparison. When I tried some macro beers like Stella which I had formerly consumed I was utterly dumbfounded, honestly, it was bland, with no hop flavour except bitterness and no malt characteristic to speak of and if I brewed it myself I would have been very disappointed.

 

[MSK_Chess]

Another Scientology reference.

yeah they just having some fun

 

[schematix]

started homebrewing I was amazed at how tasty the beers were in comparison. When I tried some macro beers like Stella which I had formerly consumed I was utterly dumbfounded, honestly, it was bland, with no hop flavour except bitterness and no malt characteristic to speak of and if I brewed it myself I would have been very disappointed.

A lot of flavor loss in commercial beer is due to filtering and pasteurization.

My home brew stout was good, but it turned amazing with low oxygen. The low oxygen roast flavor is much smoother and brighter.

It's just a process tweak like yeast starters, temp control and water chemistry.

 

[MSK_Chess]

A lot of flavor loss in commercial beer is due to filtering and pasteurization.

My home brew stout was good, but it turned amazing with low oxygen. The low oxygen roast flavor is much smoother and brighter.

It's just a process tweak like yeast starters, temp control and water chemistry.

Sure thing, that makes sense. Can I ask a few questions?

1. did you have to adjust your grain bill for efficiency?
2. did you use Camden tablets or powered SMB

 

[MSK_Chess]

While I understand that you guys are concerned with hot side oxygenation from reading your text it seems that cold side is just as important. Perhaps you guys might be interested in the Aussie fermentasaurus which appears to be designed for LODO fermentation and fermenting under pressure. You can introduce all kinds of things from dry hops to PVPP and gelatin while minimizing oxygen intake. Wondered what you thought about it?

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9AEnWA3GPw[/ame]

 

[doug293cz]

While I understand that you guys are concerned with hot side oxygenation from reading your text it seems that cold side is just as important. Perhaps you guys might be interested in the Aussie fermentasaurus which appears to be designed for LODO fermentation and fermenting under pressure. You can introduce all kinds of things from dry hops to PVPP and gelatin while minimizing oxygen intake. Wondered what you thought about it?

You could probably use that fermenter to introduce finings without introducing O2, but not with the method shown. Simply pressurizing a bottle with CO2 does not remove any O2 from the bottle. Then discharging the bottle into the fermenter will push way too much O2 into the fermenter, and bubbling the gas, containing O2, thru the beer makes the O2 exposure even worse. Likewise, the open top CO2 purge does not remove enough O2 from the jar to prevent excess O2 exposure with the dry hop method shown.

Brew on

 

[MSK_Chess]

You could probably use that fermenter to introduce finings without introducing O2, but not with the method shown. Simply pressurizing a bottle with CO2 does not remove any O2 from the bottle. Then discharging the bottle into the fermenter will push way too much O2 into the fermenter, and bubbling the gas, containing O2, thru the beer makes the O2 exposure even worse. Likewise, the open top CO2 purge does not remove enough O2 from the jar to prevent excess O2 exposure with the dry hop method shown.

Brew on

Ok I think I understand, he needs to purge the bottle e.g fill with C02 then purge it just like when we purge our kegs. Plus his bottle is massive for introducing something like 5g/300ml (the usual dosage of gelatin for a 5 gallon batch) I must admit that I am not entirely convinced of his purging of the hops either. They should make a cap similar to the one we use for filling PET bottles so that we can purge the vessel properly.

After reading the literature that was cited on LODO I understand that retaining active yeast is paramount for reducing oxygenation as it serves as a natural scourge and this method of fermentation under pressure seems to fulfil that criteria. I really want one of those fermenters but they do not sell them in the UK. Perhaps the alternative is to modify a keg? I have fermented in a keg before with fair success but the amount of yeast at the bottom was excessive. Just out of interest how do the LODO guys introduce finings and stability agents like PVPP.

 

[MSK_Chess]

I am going to start fermenting in a keg again to see if it makes any difference. I bought an adjustable ball lock valve with pressure gauge so that I will be able to ferment under a slight pressure and I can introduce finings and stabilisers without opening the top by purging a small PET bottle with CO2 and using a beer line to introduce it to the keg. I can purge the yeast from the keg as fermentation takes place and eventually transfer the finished beer to a purged serving Keg. If I want to filter I can purge all lines and vessels and do a closed transfer. Any objections as to why this might not work?

 

[Big Monk]

Just out of interest how do the LODO guys introduce finings and stability agents like PVPP.

Through a careful mix of recirculation, mash filtering, hot and cold trub removal, and lagering, most don't need any fining agents or filtering.

I'm a bottler so I can only speak to the procedures of my collaborator. The keg stays sealed, with liquid hop extract "dry hops" being added on the transfer to the spunding keg. Also, physically filtering is troublesome.

 

[MSK_Chess]

It takes a very patient brewer to wait for lagering to reduce all polyphenols, flavinoids, proteins or any other haze forming precursors from the beer. Most of the beer I make is just becoming really awesome when its close to being finished! I have no problem using PVPP and gelatin. Also filtering is fairly easy and can be done in a closed circuit, you simply purge your canisters and beer lines and attach it to both beer out-lines, its gets pushed from the bottom of one keg through the filter and into the bottom of another. Most filters have a venting valve that lets you purge the filter.

I have never used hop oil but have an idea for dryhopping without opening the keg. I would simply put hops in a little nylon bag and put them in a filter cannister without the filter. Purge the cannister entirely using CO2 and then four or five days into fermentation introduce beer into it. Once the beer in the cannister had extracted all the goodness from the hops I would reintroduce the hop infused beer back into the keg. The entire process taking place in a closed loop. What do you think?

 

[mongoose33]

<snip>

100% pilsner malt lagers may be fine for conventional brewing systems, but end up a bit bland in a LoDO system. However, in a LoDO system you can add 5-10% caramel malt to your light lager recipe without making the beer cloying, while still keeping a pale gold color, and achieving flavors that are otherwise unobtainable in a conventional brewing system. You could probably fool most homebrewers into believing that there was no caramel malt in the beer, because the flavors are so different from what they're used to.

I feel a bit bad for the people who brew their same old recipes LoDO, decide that the beer became too bland, and then abandon the technique without bothering to explore the possibilities a bit more..

I've been going back and reading older threads and ran across the above post. Wish I'd seen it four weeks ago.

I brewed a Pilsner using LODO techniques as well as I could employ them. The wort tasted very nice, but the resulting beer, which is still lagering, is as good as the previous one was, more or less. Didn't knock my socks off, that's for sure, which I'd been hoping for.

Now to try a different malt in a lager, see how that works....