Which hot-side low oxygen steps have you implemented?

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.

Which hot-side low oxygen steps have you implemented?

  • Milling under purged conditions

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yeast Oxygen Scavenging (brewing liquor)

    Votes: 13 46.4%
  • De-oxygenation by boiling (brewing liquor)

    Votes: 7 25.0%
  • Adding BTB, K/SMB, AA, Sauergut to the mash

    Votes: 15 53.6%
  • Underletting the mash (or no splashing)

    Votes: 23 82.1%
  • Mash cap

    Votes: 14 50.0%
  • No-Sparge mashing

    Votes: 15 53.6%
  • Underletting the boil kettle (or no splashing)

    Votes: 19 67.9%
  • Low vigor boil

    Votes: 20 71.4%
  • I own a fully purged system (Stout Tanks)

    Votes: 1 3.6%

  • Total voters
    28
You want a specific experimental design to test LODO as a worthwhile practice for home brewers? I guess there's an interesting ongoing natural experiment, in the form of homebrew competitions. How do LODOists fair? Otherwise, leave the science to the scientists working on the problem, because it's a lot more complicated than claimed by the LODOists.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Being able to sit the sparge system on the mash top and not "sparging" in terms of letting the sparge water fall through the air picking up even more O2 is all. Sticking with the LODO also in terms of LOW O2 not Void of O2 :)
Cheers
Jay
Ahhh, I see. Thanks!
 
You want a specific experimental design to test LODO as a worthwhile practice for home brewers? I guess there's an interesting ongoing natural experiment, in the form of homebrew competitions. How do LODOists fair? Otherwise, leave the science to the scientists working on the problem, because it's a lot more complicated than claimed by the LODOists stuck on Mount Stupid.

The LODO group correlated malt and hop exposure to measured O2 levels (air and DO) with time on both the hot and cold side. The longer the exposure to O2 the more the color darkened and the aroma and flavor subsided. The quantity of O2 also had an effect on the length of time freshness was retained with larger quantities hastening the demise.

Is this not valid for homebrewers? How would a professional scientist approach this? What would they do different?
 
I think the comment about no dedicated book having been written on the subject speaks volumes:

1.) The knowledge is locked up in textbooks and science papers out-of-reach to the common homebrewer
2.) It requires a "high degree" of scientific (chemistry) knowledge to condense what is known into something readable for the homebrewer
3.) The benefits of such a process are difficult to quantify on a small scale
4.) The industry knows best practices (macro beer producers and chemical makers, BTB, Antioxin SBT etc...) and has invested the money to figure it out but that's because it gives them a return on their investment.

The LODO group and their webpage have summarized as best they could their processes learned from textbooks and their own experiments.

Still a down-to-earth treatment of the subject in a published book would require some heavy lifting but would certainly educate and put an end to much of the misinformation that has been generated.

In draft form, how much "heavy lifting" would there be in writing the process steps for just one or two of the following:
  • Yeast Oxygen Scavenging (brewing liquor)
  • Adding BTB, K/SMB, AA, Sauergut to the mash
  • Underletting the mash (or no splashing)
  • Mash cap
  • No-Sparge mashing
  • Underletting the boil kettle (or no splashing)
  • Low vigor boil
then post the process steps here for people that are interested in further discussion on the process steps (and also discussion on approaches for validating that the steps result in better beer).
 
In draft form, how much "heavy lifting" would there be in writing the process steps for just one or two of the following:
  • Yeast Oxygen Scavenging (brewing liquor)
  • Adding BTB, K/SMB, AA, Sauergut to the mash
  • Underletting the mash (or no splashing)
  • Mash cap
  • No-Sparge mashing
  • Underletting the boil kettle (or no splashing)
  • Low vigor boil
then post the process steps here for people that are interested in further discussion on the steps and on data collection?

I believe the heavy lifting would come in the form of understanding the science behind each step, listing accurate dosing requirements for SMB and AA, hot and cold side, providing accurate DO reduction numbers for each step, etc... in general doing due diligence to be accurate *and* comparing these methods with the numbers for a fully purged system, such that "partial implementation" is distinguished from "full implementation".

Most of this information has likely already been gathered and published by the LODO group.
 
I believe the heavy lifting would come in the form of understanding the science behind each step, listing accurate dosing requirements for SMB and AA, hot and cold side, providing accurate DO reduction numbers for each step, etc... in general doing due diligence to be accurate *and* comparing these methods with the numbers for a fully purged system, such that "partial implementation" is distinguished from "full implementation".

Most of this information has likely already been gathered and published by the LODO group.
Assumption being a ‘fully purged system’ is a meaningful standard and DO is even a valid surrogate for whatever it is LODOists claim. Like I’ve already typed, it’s very complicated.


A3E84355-6EFB-4DA9-949F-D11AAD8FDDBC.jpeg
 
Correlations can be proven or disproven. If enough data is available this can be done statistically.
Nothing is ever proven, scientifically. Scientists aren’t that arrogant. This is where the naive get it so wrong time after time, pursuing the little facts planted in their brains.
 
Most of this information has likely already been gathered and published by the LODO group.
... so maybe the next step forward is
post the process steps here for people that are interested in further discussion on the process steps (and also discussion on approaches for validating that the steps result in better beer).
 
Being able to sit the sparge system on the mash top and not "sparging" in terms of letting the sparge water fall through the air picking up even more O2 is all. Sticking with the LODO also in terms of LOW O2 not Void of O2 :)
Cheers
Jay
The solubility of oxygen in water at 76 celsius must be pretty low especially given it's exposure time.

Does anyone know the solubility per litre at that temperature?
 
Love the Mash Cap. The one we sell was developed with the help of a couple well known members here on HBT. I made some connection changes and options additions so it can be really versatile. It is a game changer IMHO.

https://www.norcalbrewingsolutions.com/store/Sparge-Mash-Cap.html
Cheers
Jay
Does this device spread the sparge water out over that large surface so increasing the area for oxygen absorption, rate still to be confirmed as per my other post. Won't make a difference if it's falling thru the air or lying in a puddle it is still exposed to air.
 
What's a qualified scientist?
A scientist actively working in his field of expertise, offering an expert view based on available scientific data. Not a chancer basing it on blah, blah, blah.
 
Nothing is ever proven, scientifically. Scientists aren’t that arrogant. This is where the naive get it so wrong time after time, pursuing the little facts planted in their brains.

You apparently have no knowledge of correlation and causation.

Correlation can be proven to be causation just as you can prove causation and not correlation.
 
You apparently have no knowledge of correlation and causation.

Correlation can be proven to be causation just as you can prove causation and not correlation.
Science doesn't work like that. It's a bit more rigorous, you'll find. Fact-check it.
 
Science doesn't work like that. It's a bit more rigorous, you'll find. Fact-check it.

We are talking about validating the data gathered by the LODO group correct?

How would a professional scientist approach this? What would they do different?
 
Validation of preconceived ideas? Scary stuff. Maybe focus on your survey a bit more for the time being.
 
Does this device spread the sparge water out over that large surface so increasing the area for oxygen absorption, rate still to be confirmed as per my other post. Won't make a difference if it's falling thru the air or lying in a puddle it is still exposed to air.
More like underletting. where as the liquid is being transferred into the mash vessel without any "added" exposure to air. What you do on top of the mash/sparge/top water will help reduce exposure as well, that has yet to be discussed. But this will sit ON the mash UNDER the top liquid sparge water. Again "MY" mindset of LODO not Void of. Yours may be different, that I am not sure of. Knowing that absorption is rather slow from still liquid at least from the 411 I have gathered. Underletting the sparge water and reducing the exposure of added oxygen in the air should be helpful. Is this scientific "DATA" Well... I am not a scientist and to be fair its not the original intent of the product but makes sense to me and is how I use it. Does it assist in reducing O2 exposure? I would think so in the way I am using it. At least in what's left of my mind anyway.

Cheers
Jay
 
In draft form, how much "heavy lifting" would there be in writing the process steps for just one or two of the following:
  • Yeast Oxygen Scavenging (brewing liquor)
  • Adding BTB, K/SMB, AA, Sauergut to the mash
  • Underletting the mash (or no splashing)
  • Mash cap
  • No-Sparge mashing
  • Underletting the boil kettle (or no splashing)
  • Low vigor boil
then post the process steps here for people that are interested in further discussion on the process steps (and also discussion on approaches for validating that the steps result in better beer).

This is my no sparge routine:

Brewing water- collected days before and treated with all salts for complete dissolution 3 days ahead of time. No extra cost

YOS- the night before I fill the mashtun to just above the false bottom and the balance of strike water in the kettle. The two are connected through my CFC. After 1 hour I run this water back and forth to the same level to eliminate any air pockets in all pumps and hoses so CFC and all lines are filled with YOS water along with mash recirc pump and hoses. Cost 1g bread yeast and 1g table sugar per gallon, probably five nickles

BTB, SMB- upon heating strike water I add 1.5g BTB, 2 SMB tabs in the mashtun and 2 in the kettle. In my 11 gallons of strike water 4 tabs of SMB will add approximately 12 ppm Na, 50 ppm S04 and will scavenge about 8ppm of oxygen introduced from mash to boil. Cost maybe 50 cents

Mash cap- a ss cake pan that floats and directs the recirc through it, back at the bottom of the cake pan to not aerate or drill a hole in the grain bed. Cost $10 and some leftover fittings laying around

Brew day- add BTB and 2 SMB to mashtun and 2 SMB to kettle, heat both vessels to strike, mill grain into the mashtun as they heat. Underlet mashtun from kettle through CFC, leave attached. Recirculate the mashtun with separate pump and hoses previously run with YOS water the night before. Run off mash underlettting into the kettle through CFC. Proceed as normal from here with a gentle boil and typical finings etc... Cool, fill fermenter and pitch yeast, then add oxygen for liquid yeast starter, no oxygen needed for dry yeast or vitality starter. Cost probably 50 cents

This procedure is pure simple and not expensive. I definitely could tell I was doing something right when the mashtun had very little malt aroma coming from it and when I had only pure white foam in the kettle as I approached boil. The taste of the wort and resulting beer was an improvement from previous procedures with zero other recipe changes. For those brewing light colored, malt forward beers, give it a go. If you taste a difference, stick with it, if you don't stop. I truly only care about the flavor in my beer and really don't care about data or proving things to anyone.
 
More like underletting. where as the liquid is being transferred into the mash vessel without any "added" exposure to air. What you do on top of the mash/sparge/top water will help reduce exposure as well, that has yet to be discussed. But this will sit ON the mash UNDER the top liquid sparge water. Again "MY" mindset of LODO not Void of. Yours may be different, that I am not sure of. Knowing that absorption is rather slow from still liquid at least from the 411 I have gathered. Underletting the sparge water and reducing the exposure of added oxygen in the air should be helpful. Is this scientific "DATA" Well... I am not a scientist and to be fair its not the original intent of the product but makes sense to me and is how I use it. Does it assist in reducing O2 exposure? I would think so in the way I am using it. At least in what's left of my mind anyway.

Cheers
Jay

The fact is you don't have a mash cap.

You have a splash less sparge/recirculation arm.

You can add a mash cap to your design fairly easy but that is *not* a mash cap.

A mash cap prevents wort from contacting air/oxygen.

You need to rename that product for what it is or add a mash cap to it.
 
Please refrain from HSA/HSO opinion or discussion in this thread.

It's simply not what this thread is about.

My apologies, I must have misunderstood the "Why Not?" question from your original post. In all seriousness, there is strong science to support the benefits of reducing HSA in large scale operations. For me, it's never presented an issue. However, for the brewer who gives any of these techniques a shot and legitimately enjoy the process, and/or it improves their finished product, by all means...go for it!

After all, that's what this craft is all about right? Being able to experiment and draw your own conclusions. Cheers!
 
My apologies, I must have misunderstood the "Why Not?" question from your original post. In all seriousness, there is strong science to support the benefits of reducing HSA in large scale operations. For me, it's never presented an issue. However, for the brewer who gives any of these techniques a shot and legitimately enjoy the process, and/or it improves their finished product, by all means...go for it!

After all, that's what this craft is all about right? Being able to experiment and draw your own conclusions. Cheers!

The assumption is that if you are responding to the poll then you are doing at least one step and can discuss why the other steps are not applicable to you without introducing the ever present 'Is HSA real' arguments.
 
Do competitions track beer stats like LODO/NON LODO, EXTRACT/ALL GRAIN, etc... ?
Nope, but those that want to self-report their results could do that....I suppose scientists would call that "anecdotal evidence"? But then other brewers could take the same method and recipe and see if they can replicate the scores.....
 
People, things have gotten a little heated in this thread, and multiple posts have been deleted. Please remember that HBT rules forbid the insulting, attacking, denigrating, etc. of other members. Keep it civil here.

doug293cz
HBT Moderator
 
So previously I suggested that maybe the next step forward is
post the process steps here for people that are interested in further discussion on the process steps (and also discussion on approaches for validating that the steps result in better beer).

and a couple of brewers were willing to share their process steps. Thank you.

It will take a number of months for brewers to try these process steps. And a number of additional months to "dial it in".

And there's always the opportunity who those actively brewing with reduced oxygen techniques to share details on their brew day.

Happy (reduced oxygen) brewing. :mug:
 
Higher temperatures don't really help us though with these techniques (unless you're boiling): while oxygen solubility is lower, chemical reactions (including redox) happen much faster, and the curve of the latter is much steeper.
 
it's interesting that when I go and start reading about deareting water I found lots of breweries that have used deaerated water for years.

But mainly not in context of using the deaerated water for mashing...this list is pretty typical:

Deaerated water in the brewing process is preferred for the following reasons.
Deoxygenated water is used for pushing beer from one tank to the other.
A brewer uses deoxygenated brewing water to dilute the high-alcohol beer and bring it down to normal strength.
Dissolved salts, minerals and other additives in beer can be suspended for filtration.
All tanks and equipment which come in contact with a fermented beer, are rinsed with de-aerated water.
https://www.brewer-world.com/role-of-deaerated-water-in-brewing-beer/
has me thinking about my star san keg purging process. That starsan isn't deaerated. I guess I should think about purging with fermentation gas again but keep getting confused about how to best do that with 3 kegs.
 
This is my no sparge routine:

Brewing water- collected days before and treated with all salts for complete dissolution 3 days ahead of time. No extra cost

YOS- the night before I fill the mashtun to just above the false bottom and the balance of strike water in the kettle. The two are connected through my CFC. After 1 hour I run this water back and forth to the same level to eliminate any air pockets in all pumps and hoses so CFC and all lines are filled with YOS water along with mash recirc pump and hoses. Cost 1g bread yeast and 1g table sugar per gallon, probably five nickles

BTB, SMB- upon heating strike water I add 1.5g BTB, 2 SMB tabs in the mashtun and 2 in the kettle. In my 11 gallons of strike water 4 tabs of SMB will add approximately 12 ppm Na, 50 ppm S04 and will scavenge about 8ppm of oxygen introduced from mash to boil. Cost maybe 50 cents

Mash cap- a ss cake pan that floats and directs the recirc through it, back at the bottom of the cake pan to not aerate or drill a hole in the grain bed. Cost $10 and some leftover fittings laying around

Brew day- add BTB and 2 SMB to mashtun and 2 SMB to kettle, heat both vessels to strike, mill grain into the mashtun as they heat. Underlet mashtun from kettle through CFC, leave attached. Recirculate the mashtun with separate pump and hoses previously run with YOS water the night before. Run off mash underlettting into the kettle through CFC. Proceed as normal from here with a gentle boil and typical finings etc... Cool, fill fermenter and pitch yeast, then add oxygen for liquid yeast starter, no oxygen needed for dry yeast or vitality starter. Cost probably 50 cents

This procedure is pure simple and not expensive. I definitely could tell I was doing something right when the mashtun had very little malt aroma coming from it and when I had only pure white foam in the kettle as I approached boil. The taste of the wort and resulting beer was an improvement from previous procedures with zero other recipe changes. For those brewing light colored, malt forward beers, give it a go. If you taste a difference, stick with it, if you don't stop. I truly only care about the flavor in my beer and really don't care about data or proving things to anyone.
1+. ^^^THIS^^^ And so much more. Mostly the way I do it, since I use an AIO Braumeister. The only differences are that everything is accomplished in a single vessel, from YOS the night before brew day, full volume mash once water is up to strike temp, to cool/fill fermenter/pitch yeast. I don't need no stinkin' DATA to know that my beers (especially light colored ones) have improved. All the data I need comes from results in competition scores and ribbons. It ain't HARD. It ain't expensive. It takes virtually no extra time. I have anecdotal and quantitative data that at least SUGGESTS that there might actually be something to this whole LoDO thingy. Why does it raise such vigorous dispute? This ain't exactly rocket science. It's a hobby for most of us. Are we here to exchange ideas or start bar fights? Time to chill out and find something non-controversial, like politics or religion.
 
I must confess I do none of these, though some, such as underletting, seem quite feasible with my current system. However, the "Low vigor boil" concerns me. I thought the point of boiling (besides sterilization, alpha-acid conversion, Maillard reactions, yada, yada) was to drive off DMS, and that the vigor of the boil, its length in time, and even foam production (see Janish's excellent article) accomplished this.

After some idle speculation, one idea is a CO₂ injection in the boil. I am by no means suggesting the creation of a "CO₂ blanket" on the surface of the wort to protect it from oxygen. Instead, picture what is going on in a normal boil. The bubbles popping at the surface are mostly water vapor, and because these bubbles are hotter than the ambient air and water molecules are lighter than the two main components of air, O₂ and N₂, the water vapor is considerably less dense than surroundings and rises rapidly. Like a miniature nuclear mushroom cloud, the rising water vapor pulls a vortex ring of air underneath it, dragging oxygen down to the wort surface. In a nutshell, oxidation in a normal boil comes from water-vapor-induced turbulent mixing of the air above the kettle.

With CO₂ injection, each bubble would have a mix of CO₂ and H₂O that would make the average molecular weight closer to that of ambient air. The gas from the emerging bubble would rise at a more stately rate, leading to a weaker vortex ring and less down-movement of air. Slower rise would allow for more horizontal mixing of adjacent bubbles into a joined mass of CO₂/H₂O, filling more of the volume of the above-wort portion of the kettle. A dense, collimated column of slower moving CO₂/H₂O would push its way out of the kettle, allowing for less oxygen infiltration.

I can think of a lot of downsides, including the expense of the CO₂ (unless you've been capturing your own and don't know what to do with it all?), and that the expanded CO₂ will be cold and will eat some of the heat from your burner. Might want a longer length of hose to allow ambient air to warm it up, but make sure you don't melt that hose. I imagine you'd direct it through a stainless steel spike down to the bottom of the kettle (no air stone, that would foul up instantly, or perhaps even disintegrate).

Alas, McMullan, I have no data, just a thought experiment. I'd be curious to know if someone has tried this before.
 
@Barakn Nothing wrong with thought experiments. Any good experimental design requires, amongst others things, a good imagination. When it comes to home brew, I imagine some might already be at the point of diminishing returns pursuing LODO. Making great beer just isn’t that complicated.
 
However, the "Low vigor boil" concerns me. I thought the point of boiling (besides sterilization, alpha-acid conversion, Maillard reactions, yada, yada) was to drive off DMS, and that the vigor of the boil, its length in time, and even foam production (see Janish's excellent article) accomplished this.
Vigor of Boil and HSA (link) is a recent topic that talks about boil intensity and DMS. The topic also contains a reference to an excellent (2019) article on the subject.

In the past, Boiling Wort Visual Reference (link) has been helpful for a common vocabulary of boil intensity levels, so I'll mention it here.
 
Back
Top