On Serving: A Look at Total Oxygen Ingress

[Die_Beerery]

This is the last post in a series that we have put out which targets cold-side oxygen ingress. We had previously discussed CO2 purity, purging and transferring, and bottle cap ingress, and now we finish it up with a post that takes all that into consideration as well as factoring in vessel ingress through gaskets and serving/gas lines in oder to show the "sum of all parts" numbers for traditional/standard homebrew practices and our recommended methods.

http://www.********************/brewing-methods/beer-serving-oxygen-ingress/

 

[Big Monk]

Everything else aside, we wanted to get these cold side oxidation posts out there on people’s radar. It’s not something most people are thinking about but the sum total of all the various points of ingress could be damaging.

 

[Smellyglove]

Everything else aside, we wanted to get these cold side oxidation posts out there on people’s radar. It’s not something most people are thinking about but the sum total of all the various points of ingress could be damaging.

You wouldn't believe the amount of oxidized beer I've either made a wrinkly face of when tasting, or poured out, which I've recieved from other homebrewers who has not seen o2 it as any problem. Often people think that "It's homebrewed, it's not commercial, it's great!"But very often that's pretty far from the reality. Oxidized beer is a huge spoiler in the homebrew-community where I live at least. And very few people are aware of it.

 

[mongoose33]

I see this in the blog post:

A beverage line with 7/16” (1.11125 cm) OD and 3/16” (0.47625 cm) ID gives you a membrane thickness of 4/16” (0.635 cm), which is our d. Let’s assume a 1 m (100 cm) tube length which gives an A of:

Doesn't a beverage line of those dimensions have a membrane thickness of 2/16", not 4/16"? The distance from the inside to the outside is 2/16", so that would be the thickness, or am I missing something?

 

[mongoose33]

It's not about what is published here in the OP. It's about total ingress of oxygen. TS has only broken it down in different stages, in different posts. All stages has the potential of oxygen-pickup.

Some people goes to the extreme when it comes to oxygen pickup, others do not. Fine. But the knowledge is published, and you can use if it you want. I don't go that far myself.

TBH it seems like you don't belive that oxygen pickup has anything to say.

I've read many posts like this. And it's often that people will not accept that there's extra steps they can do comparing to what they are currently doing, often because their beer "is just fine as it is". Good. Keep on brewing and enjoy your beers. That's what's it all about. It's all about what you want from this hobby. TS and his friends obviously like the science and implement it in their brewing.

I think you've hit on something here. It is not easy to brew LODO beer. I've been playing with it, trying to get it to work, and it takes longer, is more complicated, and requires a fairly high level of understanding to get it to work right.

I can see that many people who have reached what they feel is a high level in their beer brewing--or an acceptable level--don't want to be told there's another mountain to climb.

I saw the same reaction when I mentioned oxygenating my starter wort. People went out of their way to say it's not important, where in fact there are reasons one might want to do it. Why would they do that? Perhaps not wanting extra steps.

Same with LODO brewing. I'm still on the fence about it--I need to show it's significantly better in outcome before I'd fully endorse it. I've had some success with it, trying to show I can reproduce that success. But it is not easy. There are many places O2 can enter the brewing process--many, many places. Getting a system so that one can avoid O2 is somewhat daunting. So I can understand how some people do not want to hear it's better.

Some of the LODO stuff I think is faintly ridiculous. The recommendation, for instance, to pitch yeast before you oxygenate the wort. Why? To get the yeast going as soon as possible. As if 2 minutes is going to matter either way.

But much of the rest does make sense. I've tasted wort produced in a mash situation with as low O2 as I can manage--and it tastes much, much different than "normal" wort. Much better, sweeter, more full in flavor. I've brewed an Amber that was the hit of Christmas. I have never had a keg kick so fast.

So it's a work in progress. Will it be worth the extra hassle? To give it a fair trial I need more batches under my belt, and have to find ways to improve a couple of things. I don't know if I'll have an answer before, probably, May. Or later.

 

[Die_Beerery]

Thanks for the post move mods...

HBT safe space initiated.

 

[MSK_Chess]

You wouldn't believe the amount of oxidized beer I've either made a wrinkly face of when tasting, or poured out, which I've recieved from other homebrewers who has not seen o2 it as any problem. Often people think that "It's homebrewed, it's not commercial, it's great!"But very often that's pretty far from the reality. Oxidized beer is a huge spoiler in the homebrew-community where I live at least. And very few people are aware of it.

there needs to be more education, you see lots of videos of homebrewers splashing about in the mash like they are paddling a canoe or doing open transfer of fermented beer/lager. There is a very cavalier approach to brewing.

 

[MSK_Chess]

I think you've hit on something here. It is not easy to brew LODO beer. I've been playing with it, trying to get it to work, and it takes longer, is more complicated, and requires a fairly high level of understanding to get it to work right.

I can see that many people who have reached what they feel is a high level in their beer brewing--or an acceptable level--don't want to be told there's another mountain to climb.

I saw the same reaction when I mentioned oxygenating my starter wort. People went out of their way to say it's not important, where in fact there are reasons one might want to do it. Why would they do that? Perhaps not wanting extra steps.

Same with LODO brewing. I'm still on the fence about it--I need to show it's significantly better in outcome before I'd fully endorse it. I've had some success with it, trying to show I can reproduce that success. But it is not easy. There are many places O2 can enter the brewing process--many, many places. Getting a system so that one can avoid O2 is somewhat daunting. So I can understand how some people do not want to hear it's better.

Some of the LODO stuff I think is faintly ridiculous. The recommendation, for instance, to pitch yeast before you oxygenate the wort. Why? To get the yeast going as soon as possible. As if 2 minutes is going to matter either way.

But much of the rest does make sense. I've tasted wort produced in a mash situation with as low O2 as I can manage--and it tastes much, much different than "normal" wort. Much better, sweeter, more full in flavor. I've brewed an Amber that was the hit of Christmas. I have never had a keg kick so fast.

So it's a work in progress. Will it be worth the extra hassle? To give it a fair trial I need more batches under my belt, and have to find ways to improve a couple of things. I don't know if I'll have an answer before, probably, May. Or later.

Lagers and Pilsners for me is the real test, nowhere to hide, not behind the malt and not behind the hops. I tried numerous times with varying degrees of success to brew Lagers/Pilsners, some were ok, others less than optimal, now i think i can brew a good and even excellent Lager with some confidence in my process. There is always something to learn.

 

[Smellyglove]

there needs to be more education, you see lots of videos of homebrewers splashing about in the mash like they are paddling a canoe or doing open transfer of fermented beer/lager. There is a very cavalier approach to brewing.

Yes. Same here. The easiest way to "educate" people frequenting a forum like this isto just say it as it is, at least I do that. I just say straight out that "I'd never to that" because of oxidation, and I'm not on the boat that "It will probably be fine, it's just a little oxygen".. Little here, little there.. and yea, bland beer.

I remember getting some heat when I said that a bottle conditioned IPA will never taste as fresh as a kegged IPA with closed loop transfer. Several people didn't like what I said. But hold your ground. Many people just relay information they've read somewhere, without having done the experimentation or have enough exeprience with a given topic, so just say that oxygen at every point in the process, at least and especially the cold side is bad, and people will follow. But there's no need to go on a crusade with the info. It's up to the reader to decide what he or she wants to do with any info given.

 

[MSK_Chess]

Yes. Same here. The easiest way to "educate" people frequenting a forum like this isto just say it as it is, at least I do that. I just say straight out that "I'd never to that" because of oxidation, and I'm not on the boat that "It will probably be fine, it's just a little oxygen".. Little here, little there.. and yea, bland beer.

I remember getting some heat when I said that a bottle conditioned IPA will never taste as fresh as a kegged IPA with closed loop transfer. Several people didn't like what I said. But hold your ground. Many people just relay information they've read somewhere, without having done the experimentation or have enough exeprience with a given topic, so just say that oxygen at every point in the process, at least and especially the cold side is bad, and people will follow. But there's no need to go on a crusade with the info. It's up to the reader to decide what he or she wants to do with any info given.

Hops as far as I understand are super susceptible to oxidation. You got a big IPA and that oxygen is going to have a feast if it can, its just so reactive.

 

[Smellyglove]

Hops as far as I understand are super susceptible to oxidation. You got a big IPA and that oxygen is going to have a feast if it can, its just so reactive.

It starts at packaging.

 

[Die_Beerery]

It starts at packaging.

Actually it starts the minute the yeast fall and can't keep up with ingress, in the fermenter.

 

[Smellyglove]

Actually it starts the minute the yeast fall and can't keep up with ingress, in the fermenter.

I meant for hops, the quality of hops. I'm a big hophead myself

 

[Veets]

Several errors in the analysis.
The quoted permeability coefficient is at 25 degrees C, right? I hope you don’t keep your beer lines at 25C. Reference (2) says that for every 10C increase your permeation rate doubles, so you can cut those amounts of oxygen ingress by about a factor of 4 as a start.
The proposition for the idea that the permeation coefficient is 18.75 times more for plasticized PVC is based on information for the rate of O2 ingress, not a comparison of the coefficient itself. It doesn’t work that way.
The analysis also assumes that all O2 going through the beer and CO2 lines is immediately getting into the beer. This is not correct. What’s the justification for ignoring the need of the O2 to dissolve into the pressurized, chilled beer itself in the gas lines, and ignoring the need for the O2 to permeate into the pressurized CO2 in the gas line (and then into the beer in the serving vessel)?
Those calculations are just plain wrong and overblown.

 

[milldoggy]

I ran 27ft of 1/4 barrier tubing(eaton brand) and 15 ft of co2(standard reinforced vinyl) and experience oxidation in the beer line. My tubing holds around a pint, after two weeks if not pouring a neipa, first beer(all in lines) is darker slightly nfrom second(all in keg). 4 weeks in lines, beer is even darker and carb levels are about half of keg.

So line oxidation is real, not #fakebeernews

 

[Big Monk]

Several errors in the analysis.
The quoted permeability coefficient is at 25 degrees C, right? I hope you don’t keep your beer lines at 25C. Reference (2) says that for every 10C increase your permeation rate doubles, so you can cut those amounts of oxygen ingress by about a factor of 4 as a start.
The proposition for the idea that the permeation coefficient is 18.75 times more for plasticized PVC is based on information for the rate of O2 ingress, not a comparison of the coefficient itself. It doesn’t work that way.
The analysis also assumes that all O2 going through the beer and CO2 lines is immediately getting into the beer. This is not correct. What’s the justification for ignoring the need of the O2 to dissolve into the pressurized, chilled beer itself in the gas lines, and ignoring the need for the O2 to permeate into the pressurized CO2 in the gas line (and then into the beer in the serving vessel)?
Those calculations are just plain wrong and overblown.

Thanks for the comments. We'll look into it.

 

[JJ900]

I noticed the article referenced in post #1 mentions bottle cap ingress, so I was reading about that topic and it suggested that if you sanitize the oxygen scavenging bottle caps you basically remove any benefit they offer - this was mentioned almost as a footnote. Is this something talked about in other LODO discussions or commonly agreed upon by others? I just haven't come across it yet...and am wondering if I should roll the germs dice by not sanitizing those caps.

"The Oxygen barrier cap limits the O2 ingress to (if you do not sanitize, as the sanitizer and water will have O2 negating any positive effects.) ~125 ppb over the same 6 month period (at 24°C).”

 

[KingBrianI]

Anyone have a good source for the upgraded liquid and gas tubing described in the article? Google isn't helping...

For liquid:

Bevlex® Series 235 Polyefin Tube with Internal Dual Barrier is a great tubing as it has another liner in it. I have ran it for about 10 years now with great success.

For gas:

Bev-Seal® Series 176 “Proprietary Barrier Protected core tube design resists permeation of the CO2 gas, while at the same time protecting the gas from ingression of external contaminants.” I have ran this as well for some time with great results.​

 

[day_trippr]

There's a typo in that liquid line description, there is no such line as "Bevlex Series 235".
They were going for Bev-Seal Ultra Series 235, which is widely carried by the foot, and very popular wrt barrier lines.

The gas line reference is correct - there actually is a Bev-Seal Series 176 barrier CO2 gas line. That said, good luck laying your hands on less than a spool...

Cheers!

 

[PlinyTheMiddleAged]

The gas line reference is correct - there actually is a Bev-Seal Series 176 barrier CO2 gas line. That said, good luck laying your hands on less than a spool...

Cheers!

Agreed! If anyone has any luck getting less than a full spool, let me know as I’ve been looking for a while. What about getting an interested group together to divvy up a spool?

PlinyTheMiddleAged