Sugar Addition to Purge O2

Great read. Too bad it got nuked. More people should read it.

 

I suspect if you leave a link in this thread it won't get deleted. My guess is that it was objectionable as a stand-alone link to content hosted on another site (which is a bit spammy), but there's nothing wrong with linking to external resources and people do it all the time. Maybe a bit of a closer call when you wrote the external source, but people sometimes link to their blogs for recipes etc., so I bet it would be fine.

 

Yea well either way, no warning or anything, just deletion, kinda weak IMO, but ehh whatever. The thing about science is even if you don't believe it, it's still true! Guess I will just stick to posting pictures....

 

Damn I was hoping to read it but worked last night and just woke up. I'm sure it's similiar to the stuff on your website, correct?

 

http://www.lowoxygenbrewing.com/brewing-methods/carbon-dioxide-purity/

 

I still don't get the argument you were trying to make

 

Ugh. Again?

 

Let's see if I can translate some of the highlights for you. @TheBeerery can correct me if I miss the mark.

- Purging does not eliminate all the O2 from the headspace.
- In addition, CO2 supplies themselves contain some O2 and introduce it to the beer when force carbonating.
- Any amount of O2 causes staling. But the more O2, the faster the process from fresh, through various flavor changes, all the way to classic cardboard/sherry.
- The amount of O2 needed to move into the second stage (where flavors start to change) is pretty small.

 

Ok. so

-not all no, but effectively 90% with maybe 3 purges

-the cost of producing CO2 increases dramatically with purity. I would guess each decimal place of purity is a 2-3 time increase in cost. (also most CO2 you'll buy is partially nitrogen, not to be thought of as 'pure' CO2 regardless)

-any amount will have an effect on taste, but the amount (x) is directly associated with effect on taste (y), depending on period of time (t) (though I don't know the mathematical equivalency, not to mention its a sensory thing). So say generally,
y > a*x*t,
where (a) is some constant factor. So as long as (y) stays below some threshold, the general public wouldn't taste noticeable oxidation.
As (x)-->0, the effect on taste requires more time, (t), before reaching said threshold.
As (x)-->infinity, it requires far less time.
Which is why beer left out overnight is brown, why homebrew (bottles) starts turning brown after a month or so, and why most domestically available beers wont brown for a few years. Because THE SHIT WORKS.

Did I cover all that unwavering science?

 

I am guessing that you have experience with homebrewed beer in kegs?

Assuming the answer to the above question is yes: how is it that homebrewers can produce 'acceptable' beer when they keg it using carbonation via external CO2 tanks?

Cheers!

@billandsuz

 

I know you were addressing this to @Coons, but the answer is obvious if you replace "acceptable" with "good, better, and best" or any similar series of descriptors that account for a spectrum of acceptable-ness. The problem is that everyone will draw their own lines between good/better/best or even pretend that these gradations don't exist. I have no doubt at all that oxidation affects flavor and that the changes start very early. And the more oxygen present, the sooner the changes will be noticeable. I personally think the idea that homebrew gets consumed "so fast that it doesn't matter" is naïve.

Diverging from the discussion of force carbonation...I do some (but not all) of the things @TheBeerery advocates at their website. I don't doubt that the things that I don't do could have a positive impact. But I draw my lines where I draw them. One man's overkill (or at least not worth the bang for the buck) is another man's essential process. I also admit that as I draw closer to retirement, and will have more time to brew, some of those techniques that I don't do are starting to look more interesting/practical.

I find it interesting (and a little amusing) that some people attack @TheBeerery's statements of fact (which are well researched and documented) rather than arguing that "Ok, maybe those things are true, but I'm happy with the way my beer turns out." I think there's a natural resistance to someone else suggesting that there are potentially better practices than the ones that someone has been using for years and making "great" beer.

 

The guy is quoting Wolfgang Kunze not citing AHA madlibs off their forums. I don't get bent out of shape. I think it's a great resource even though I'll never be as eccentric to avoid all oxygen but if I can do even 50% I should make better beer and I definitely won't make worse beer being mindful of oxygen.

 

I think for the most part, it's hard to argue the work he has done and he is a great resource if interested in following his techniques.

However, his downfall IMO tends to be his constant arrogance, which rubs people the wrong way.

It's one thing to be genuinely helpful, another to be pushy/spammy all the time with his website and mentality that if your not brewing low O2, your beer is not good. That is the vibe and presence he gives off. The dude is passionate with what he does, for sure, but not everybody aspires to be that OCD on those techniques...

Many just want to brew beer and have fun with it, not worry about the purity of their CO2 tank and how their beer with oxidize and be terrible within hours/days.

Oh, and nearly every topic he posts in tends to turn into some type of pissing contest of sorts with various people. Just gets old!

 

Hey Vikeman, care to detail the aspects of your process that contribute to low dissolved oxygen? Cheers!

 

As a retired guy, I am doing more and more low O2 in my brewing. For a while I had taken many shortcuts and was asking why my Pilsners were not as good. Going back to what I used to do, and then adding to it has improved those beers.

I still haven’t gotten all of the copper out of my system. Brewtan-B helps mitigate that. I keep coming up with hacks that improve the system and my process.

Having been in many German breweries, they brew with low O2 in mind. Nothing to hide behind in a Munich Helles. Once you know what it tastes like, you find it in many beers - I’m not talking cardboard here- but those dull malt and hop flavors.

 

This is why I got irritated.
A person was asking a simple question about improving the quality of their beer.
"Purging the head of O2 helps, here's some graphs on how much" would've been an appropriate response.
Homebrewers typically don't have the perfect equipment ever, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't understand what the downfalls are and how to better correct for those. Everyone should be made capable of producing the best beer they can.
But the answer he got seemed the equivalent of
"hey kid cooking your food only kills some of the bacteria, so don't even bother doing that shit. did you know conventional gas burning ovens are only 40% efficient anyway?"
Like who is that helping except his own ego.

 

You guys crack me up.

 

Haters gonna hate.

 

I'll probably forget something, but here goes:
- Crush Grains as close to Mash-in as possible
- Moderate Grain Crush
- Short-ish Mashes
- Low-ish mash pH
- Treat Mash and Mash-out water with K-Meta
- Avoid unnecessary agitation during Mash/Lauter
- Short-ish, Gentle Boils (more to do with flavor stability, but not directly with O2 introduction at that stage)
- Stainless Steel Conical Fermenter
- Spunding Valve rather than airlock
- Closed Transfers, into purged kegs (equipped with spunding valves)
- Flush transfer tubing and (closed) racking valve with CO2 while hooking up
- Gentle pour into serving glass (kidding)