Membership questions? Log in issues? Email info@brewersassociation.org

Author Topic: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science  (Read 17181 times)

Offline dannyjed

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
  • Toledo, OH
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #30 on: December 27, 2016, 01:29:35 pm »
I was wondering if anyone here knows the percentage of Pro Breweries in the US that are LODO? Also, what breweries in particular that use these techniques?
Dan Chisholm

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 27316
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #31 on: December 27, 2016, 01:32:27 pm »

"However, the growing amount of evidence supports the notion that HSA, while perhaps not necessarily mythical, does not have a noticeable negative impact on homebrewed beer and hence can be appropriately relegated to the annals of homebrew history."

Ooopps...yeah, there's that....:)
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 27316
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #32 on: December 27, 2016, 01:34:01 pm »
I was wondering if anyone here knows the percentage of Pro Breweries in the US that are LODO? Also, what breweries in particular that use these techniques?

I'm familiar with a lot of breweries and hardly ever see it.  Sierra Nevada is one that implements at least part of the procedure.  What do you mean by "These techniques"?  If you're referring to SMB, none that I'm aware of.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Big Monk

  • Guest
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #33 on: December 27, 2016, 01:42:01 pm »
I was wondering if anyone here knows the percentage of Pro Breweries in the US that are LODO? Also, what breweries in particular that use these techniques?

I'm familiar with a lot of breweries and hardly ever see it.  Sierra Nevada is one that implements at least part of the procedure.  What do you mean by "These techniques"?  If you're referring to SMB, none that I'm aware of.

If they use fairly large mashing vessels and degas water then they are Low Oxygen on the hot side.

If they package with a multi-pass vacuum evacuation/purge cycle then they are Low Oxygen on the cold side.

Sodium Metabisulfite is a hack used to scavenge oxygen at he level most homebrewer said are brewing at (5 gal ish). Large breweries have no need for a scavenger because degassed water coupled with large vessels means zero oxygen on mash in and little to no ingress during mashing.

Offline dannyjed

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
  • Toledo, OH
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #34 on: December 27, 2016, 01:43:18 pm »
I was wondering if anyone here knows the percentage of Pro Breweries in the US that are LODO? Also, what breweries in particular that use these techniques?

I'm familiar with a lot of breweries and hardly ever see it.  Sierra Nevada is one that implements at least part of the procedure.  What do you mean by "These techniques"?  If you're referring to SMB, none that I'm aware of.
I mean limiting Oxygen exposure from the hot side to the cold side. So, is it safe to say that most Pro US breweries do not?
Dan Chisholm

Offline ynotbrusum

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 4903
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #35 on: December 27, 2016, 01:48:57 pm »
Interestingly, we should consider a thread where people missed objectively identifiable standards in their "Citizen Science".  I just made a beer yesterday using LoDo techniques and a BIAB RIMS technique that failed miserably in hitting intended gravities, because while I underlet the mash, I did not stir it and relied upon the recirculation to adequately permeate the mash (direct fired with the grain bag suspended above the bottom of the kettle and a colander sitting on the grain into which the wort was recirculated).  It wasn't LoDo's fault, nor BIAB technique's fault.  I just didn't stir the grain (fearing oxidation) and had dry pockets within the mash due to the colander working a bit too well in restraining the recirculation.  My OG had to be assisted with DME in the boil to get to the right OG for the Vienna Lager I made...I will try it again next time without the colander and see if my results improve....This doesn't prove or disprove anything other than a proper mash requires the water to reach the grain at the right temperatures.  How you get it there is open to resolution given your particular system.
Hodge Garage Brewing: "Brew with a glad heart!"

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 27316
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #36 on: December 27, 2016, 02:08:11 pm »
I mean limiting Oxygen exposure from the hot side to the cold side. So, is it safe to say that most Pro US breweries do not?

I think most (likely all) US breweries are aware of the impact of oxygen and do what they can to limit exposure.  But those measure will vary from brewery to brewery.  One brewery I work with diligently checks DO levels on the canning/bottling line, but has limited ways to deal with it.  To their credit they must be doing something right because the DO levels are always within limit.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Big Monk

  • Guest
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #37 on: December 27, 2016, 02:17:24 pm »
I mean limiting Oxygen exposure from the hot side to the cold side. So, is it safe to say that most Pro US breweries do not?

I think most (likely all) US breweries are aware of the impact of oxygen and do what they can to limit exposure.  But those measure will vary from brewery to brewery.  One brewery I work with diligently checks DO levels on the canning/bottling line, but has limited ways to deal with it.  To their credit they must be doing something right because the DO levels are always within limit.

Makes sense. Fermentation is going to make sure you have zero DO.

Offline bayareabrewer

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #38 on: December 27, 2016, 02:28:56 pm »
I was wondering if anyone here knows the percentage of Pro Breweries in the US that are LODO? Also, what breweries in particular that use these techniques?

Of the several dozens of breweries I've visited, absolutely zero.

Offline Kutaka

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #39 on: December 27, 2016, 02:44:42 pm »
Can anyone refer me to a citizen science beer experiment that has disproved an experiment conducted by professional brewing scientists?

Citizen science experiments are interesting to read.  Brewing experiments conducted with more rigorous scientific methods are more interesting to read. 

I read both and conduct my own experiments because my sensory perception isn't influenced by what someone else says it should be.  Due to the highly subjective nature of what makes a good beer, conventional homebrew wisdom isn't a universal truth, but many think it should be.










Offline dilluh98

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 575
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #40 on: December 27, 2016, 02:48:29 pm »
I would assume that Budweiser would be a LoDO brewery, no?

My guess is if the brewery isn't macro or close to it, they aren't LoDO in the way GBF talks about (hot, cold, packaging). This is no knock on craft breweries as it's been posited that the smaller breweries in Germany make lagers and pilsners that taste like craft lagers and pilsners in the US. I imagine that it would be an enormous investment for a smaller brewery to implement these processes (degassing, purging, etc) for what they might not deem as reasonable improvements to their product.

Offline Joe Sr.

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 4467
  • Chicago - NORTH SIDE
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #41 on: December 27, 2016, 03:10:45 pm »
I imagine that it would be an enormous investment for a smaller brewery to implement these processes (degassing, purging, etc) for what they might not deem as reasonable improvements to their product.

Methinks that's Denny's (and others) position throughout this discussion. 

For some it's worthwhile.  For others, not so much.  I don't think anyone is saying there's no benefit to limiting DO.
It's all in the reflexes. - Jack Burton

Offline beersk

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 3721
  • In the night!
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #42 on: December 27, 2016, 03:48:02 pm »
I would assume that Budweiser would be a LoDO brewery, no?

My guess is if the brewery isn't macro or close to it, they aren't LoDO in the way GBF talks about (hot, cold, packaging). This is no knock on craft breweries as it's been posited that the smaller breweries in Germany make lagers and pilsners that taste like craft lagers and pilsners in the US. I imagine that it would be an enormous investment for a smaller brewery to implement these processes (degassing, purging, etc) for what they might not deem as reasonable improvements to their product.
Yes, I would assume most, if not all, macro breweries in the US are low oxygen capable.

I think that citizen science is what helps push a hobby forward. Previous to Ken Schwartz and Denny in the homebrewing community everyone thought all grain brewing had to be done with fly sparging. It's that kind of stuff, just like low oxygen on the homebrew scale, that helps people rethink the hobby. And so, you do it or you don't, which is why we still see people fly sparging. I think it has been said from the beginning of this whole hot mess that they aren't here to convert anyone, but to open minds. Choose your own density.
Jesse

Offline bboy9000

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • KCMO
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #43 on: December 27, 2016, 04:03:42 pm »
I was wondering if anyone here knows the percentage of Pro Breweries in the US that are LODO? Also, what breweries in particular that use these techniques?

By volume of market share over 70% of beer sold in the US is likely LODO.

EDIT:  Is it safe to say breweries using a BrauKon system are LODO?  If so, dozens of breweries.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2016, 04:34:14 pm by bboy9000 »
Brian
mobrewer

Offline Kutaka

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: Brewing Science vs. Citizen Science
« Reply #44 on: December 27, 2016, 04:44:42 pm »
As a semi-bi-annual observer of homebrew topics, I would appreciate it if someone could  briefly explain what is currently considered to be a LODO homebrew process from grain to glass.  I think I practice homebrew LODO with the exception of HSA.