[brewinhard]

I've never even gotten it fresh here in the US. And in green bottles...no bueno.

Process-wise, much debate over that... brew with degassed water, keeping dissolved O2 low throughout process, step mash 30 minutes at 145F, raise to 162F for 30-60 minutes. Boil 60 minutes, chill to 45F, ferment at 48F for a week or so. Raise to 60F for a day or two, then keg or drop it down slowly to the 30's and lager.

You'll have many different opinions on this.

Is that what Jever does?

Does anyone know what Jever does? This is what I would do.  And I'll bet Jever does at least 50% of that.

Not trying to be argumentative or derail the thread, but I've stopped following those threads.  Are people making better beer following this process?  Is there any consensus?  Or is it still a hotly debated theory?  Just curious.  I have some lagers planned for my line up but I don't really plan to follow this method anyway.

They claim they're better, yes; fresher malt character. I believe it. But I'm trying it out for myself to see if there's a difference. I still have yet to get a spunding valve though, so that might be the kicker for me right now. Can't hurt to try it, is all I'm saying. There's been a lot of push back on it that I don't understand. Try it or don't. That simple. Jury's still out for me.

But I think the main point is: if you like the beer you're making now, your way, stick to it. But, like me, I'm not very happy with my lighter styles after fresh ingredients, pH control with Bru'n water, fermentation temp control; I'm looking for an improvement in my process...this might just be it.
I've got a 2.5 gallon batch of helles on tap now that was fermented in a keg, close transferred to a purged 2.5 gallon keg and it just tastes stale to me...shouldn't have been any O2 pickup in the transfer... makes me wonder, ya know?

Alright, back to the thread at hand! Sorry OP.

How does it taste stale to you?  Malts or hops? Both?  Does it just come across as bland?  If so, maybe it is as simple as trying a new water profile for this style. Just a thought.

[denny]

I see it as still being a wash. Some European brewers perform LODO, others do not but still have that fresh grain field at night "it" aroma. (I'm looking at you, Pilsner Urquell...)

Add to that the fact that I don't like using more additives in my beers than I have to, and I have absolutely  no interest in any of the methods currently being described.

Do you know which ones?  I'd like to look into it, but haven't been able to find any info.

[Joe Sr.]

Not trying to be argumentative or derail the thread, but I've stopped following those threads.  Are people making better beer following this process?  Is there any consensus?  Or is it still a hotly debated theory?  Just curious.  I have some lagers planned for my line up but I don't really plan to follow this method anyway.

And have they done any real testing or is it just "oh, my beer is so much better now".

You've sort of distilled my question to it's essence there.  It seems like a lot of people are trying it (and Brewtan B) but I don't know if there's any consensus on results. 

But I don't want to do a full de-rail of this thread, which is where this is going.  Sorry!

[Phil_M]

I see it as still being a wash. Some European brewers perform LODO, others do not but still have that fresh grain field at night "it" aroma. (I'm looking at you, Pilsner Urquell...)

Add to that the fact that I don't like using more additives in my beers than I have to, and I have absolutely  no interest in any of the methods currently being described.

Do you know which ones?  I'd like to look into it, but haven't been able to find any info.

I should have stated "Some European brewers are said to use LODO." IIRC that one German textbook was a source for this statement, but I could be incorrect.

I'd rather be the guy making a great lager the traditional way, complete with HSA, than chasing after possible straws. I'm going to let things settle out before I worry about this any more.

[beersk]

I see it as still being a wash. Some European brewers perform LODO, others do not but still have that fresh grain field at night "it" aroma. (I'm looking at you, Pilsner Urquell...)

Add to that the fact that I don't like using more additives in my beers than I have to, and I have absolutely  no interest in any of the methods currently being described.

Do you know which ones?  I'd like to look into it, but haven't been able to find any info.

I should have stated "Some European brewers are said to use LODO." IIRC that one German textbook was a source for this statement, but I could be incorrect.

I'd rather be the guy making a great lager the traditional way, complete with HSA, than chasing after possible straws. I'm going to let things settle out before I worry about this any more.

Yes, but those traditional beers of 100+ years ago likely didn't taste like they taste today. There is merit to it...

@brewinhard, I don't know, the malt seems stale to me. It might be water, but I'm doubting that. It's just missing that fresh grain character that I'm after. I'm definitely going to give low DO brewing a shot to my fullest extent to see if I notice an improvement. The improvement is said to be so night and day that blind tastings aren't necessary. I don't know and don't care much about that. If I notice the beer is better than I've ever brewed it, then I see it as an improvement. And knowing what "it" tastes and smells like will only help me identify whether the process improvement was worth it.


And I've read some people not wanting to put "additives" into their beers. If you use irish moss, whirlflock, gelatin, etc. you're putting additives in your beer that aren't necessary. Tired of reading about that. Sulfites are used for wine, why not beer too?
I guess I'm not crazy about the idea, but if it works, it works.

[hopfenundmalz]

The larger breweries would probably use LODO if they have new brew houses. DO water is use in boilers and to push beer around, and why not brew with it if it is the brewery "house" water?

The smaller family breweries don't, I was told Mahr's doesn't by someone in the industry. I have been in a few that are no more sophisticated than the average Homebrewer on this forum.

Going back again and touring around Bavaria. Should be fun asking questions.

[Phil_M]

Yes, but those traditional beers of 100+ years ago likely didn't taste like they taste today. There is merit to it...

And I've read some people not wanting to put "additives" into their beers. If you use irish moss, whirlflock, gelatin, etc. you're putting additives in your beer that aren't necessary. Tired of reading about that. Sulfites are used for wine, why not beer too?
I guess I'm not crazy about the idea, but if it works, it works.

True, but you might also argue that Pilsner Urquell tastes like to other beer made today-in a good way. And that's with their HSA-inducing grant. Kai even details an old German brewery on his page that does the same.

Sulfites are specifically the additives I do not want to add to my beer. A glass or two of a cheap sweet wine will give me a migraine the following day. Sulfites seem to be the likely cause, so I avoid them. That being said, I've stopped using whirfloc, I often forget to add it and I just don't see it making a difference in the final beers. But that's just me, folks are more than free to do what they want.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm sure LODO does something. I'm just not yet sure that it does something I care enough about to implement. Yet. Time will tell, and meanwhile I'm going to RDWAHAHB.

[HoosierBrew]

OP - If I were trying to clone Jever I'd definitely use the Jever boiled water profile for starters. I'd use all pils (or maybe pils plus some chit malt) and I'd target ~ 44 IBU, with ~ 60% of the IBU (ie., around 25 IBU) added @ 60 min and spread the remaining balance of the IBU in 20 to 0 minute additions of Mittelfrueh or your German hops of choice. I'd step mash preferably, though you could mash 148F/90 mins in a pinch. I'd probably use Wyeast 2124. That would be roughly in the ballpark.

[beersk]

Yes, but those traditional beers of 100+ years ago likely didn't taste like they taste today. There is merit to it...

And I've read some people not wanting to put "additives" into their beers. If you use irish moss, whirlflock, gelatin, etc. you're putting additives in your beer that aren't necessary. Tired of reading about that. Sulfites are used for wine, why not beer too?
I guess I'm not crazy about the idea, but if it works, it works.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm sure LODO does something. I'm just not yet sure that it does something I care enough about to implement. Yet. Time will tell, and meanwhile I'm going to RDWAHAHB.

Absolutely. With you 100% here. But I'm trying it out. If I don't notice positive differences I'm going to say fvck it. But I'm also not going to completely discount it because I'm probably doing something wrong. I truly believe there's merit to it. But whether it's worth it to go "all in" on, is the question. I'm happy with all my beers except helles. Again, makes me wonder...

[HoosierBrew]

Absolutely. With you 100% here. But I'm trying it out. If I don't notice positive differences I'm going to say fvck it. But I'm also not going to completely discount it because I'm probably doing something wrong. I truly believe there's merit to it. But whether it's worth it to go "all in" on, is the question. I'm happy with all my beers except helles. Again, makes me wonder...

Yeah, I feel the same. I believe in the concept because excellent breweries wouldn't be wasting time and $ implementing it for no reason. The question is to find out if I can implement it in a way that is feasible, reasonable time-wise, and makes noticeably better beer.

[beersk]

Absolutely. With you 100% here. But I'm trying it out. If I don't notice positive differences I'm going to say fvck it. But I'm also not going to completely discount it because I'm probably doing something wrong. I truly believe there's merit to it. But whether it's worth it to go "all in" on, is the question. I'm happy with all my beers except helles. Again, makes me wonder...

Yeah, I feel the same. I believe in the concept because excellent breweries wouldn't be wasting time and $ implementing it for no reason. The question is to find out if I can implement it in a way that is feasible, reasonable time-wise, and makes noticeably better beer.

I have to believe that every little bit counts. Even if you aren't all in, I'd think it makes a positive difference. I'm hoping for that at least.

[mabrungard]

Sulfites are specifically the additives I do not want to add to my beer. A glass or two of a cheap sweet wine will give me a migraine the following day. Sulfites seem to be the likely cause, so I avoid them. That being said, I've stopped using whirfloc, I often forget to add it and I just don't see it making a difference in the final beers. But that's just me, folks are more than free to do what they want.

Sulfites added to water and wort at a pre-boil stage will be converted to harmless sulfate during the boil. Don't worry about them in brewing. Remember, wine is not boiled and the sulfites remain intact into the bottle.