[The Professor]

I should emphasize again that I'm _not_ disputing the effects of cold side aeration--I'm just wondering about how quickly they manifest at homebrew scales under homebrew handling conditions in a way that the typical taster can perceive them.

I completely agree.  Numbers are one thing, taste is another.

THIS! Definitely.

[Wilbur]

This is exactly right.

Here is my problem. Everything we post is based on science AND sensory analysis.
But, we (and only we, which I don’t understand) HAVE to post the science behind why we say something for validation for people meanwhile everyone else gets to say “to me it matters”.  When we say that, the response is “we need to see the science to back this up”.  When we post the science they say “science doesn’t matter”.

Repeat endlessly. I don’t get it. 

Try it, don’t try it. It’s beer, who cares.  We have literal thousands of people trying and loving our methods.  So it’s certainly not the snake oil folks make it out to be. 






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think what people are debating the significance, not the science, whether or not they're using the right terminology.

Let's not forget drinking beer is not just about the taste, but the experience. The best beer you might have my be the macro lager you drink playing bags with your buddies.

Anyway, in summary, here's the greatest praise I can offer anyone with a novel look at brewing: I'm excited to try it out.

[mabrungard]

The cold side effects of oxygen aren't up for debate. They are proven. What is debatable is the net effect. Bottle conditioning and spunding offer the opportunity to reduce packaged oxygen to the lowest possible level. Using the lowest oxygen content CO2 for forced carbonation is the next best thing. Time and temperature directly affect the oxygen uptake and staling process, so beer kept cold and consumed quickly will always suffer the least.

[Big Monk]

I should emphasize again that I'm _not_ disputing the effects of cold side aeration--I'm just wondering about how quickly they manifest at homebrew scales under homebrew handling conditions in a way that the typical taster can perceive them.

I completely agree.  Numbers are one thing, taste is another.

THIS! Definitely.

Except that what we post is not only backed by our own sensory perceptions, but those is professional sensory panels across the world. Remember that what we know about sensory analysis comes out of the professional brewing world. These companies have spent millions of dollars on determining what the oxidation thresholds are so that we don’t have to. That’s not really the point either though. The blog post wasn’t meant to address every single persons delta between objective and subjective in beer flavor.

We were noticing that many people getting in touch with us were describing a series of common flavor degradations that fall squarely in the “Stage B” category: diminished hop aroma, flavor, and bitterness in the keg as well as cloying sweetness which typically represent oxidized notes from cara malts. We were hip to these because of the methods we are using and we know them to mark the transition between brewery fresh, “Stage A” flavors and the characteristic “Stage B” flavors. We wrote the post to get this on people’s radar, not to debate the indisputable science and sensory analysis behind it.

I think another major hurdle to a conversation on this topic is that people get offended when you term something oxidized. That’s because we’ve indoctrinated people to think that oxidized flavors only consist of the classic, “Stage C” flavors: cardboard, sherry, vinegar, etc. In reality, many people exist in the “Stage B” zone and could do very simple things to prevent that.

[klickitat jim]

This is exactly right.

Here is my problem. Everything we post is based on science AND sensory analysis.
But, we (and only we, which I don’t understand) HAVE to post the science behind why we say something for validation for people meanwhile everyone else gets to say “to me it matters”.  When we say that, the response is “we need to see the science to back this up”.  When we post the science they say “science doesn’t matter”.

Repeat endlessly. I don’t get it. 

Try it, don’t try it. It’s beer, who cares.  We have literal thousands of people trying and loving our methods.  So it’s certainly not the snake oil folks make it out to be. 






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I for one am quite sick of the "us against them" mental illness that is everywhere these days. It creates a blockade to ever learning anything. But especially in a hobby for crying out loud.

Perhaps "you guys" were over pummeled with demands for scientific proof, and maybe that helped foster the defensive stance you've taken.

I'll admit that I am unwilling to jump in your boat. But I also admit you are probably right on a lot of things. Having said that, as far as this forum goes, from my view point only... It's obvious both sides of this fight are not going to back down. Anger may be guiding a lot of what is said. I kind of see it from both sides. You guys are strongest when you stick to the science. The other side is strongest when they stick to their personal experience. Where it gets off track is comments like suggesting non low oxy people just don't know that their beer sucks... well, then they get riled because,,,  well, its an ignorant thing to say.

I'm hoping the stupid fighting goes away. Soon... It's a hobby.

[Robert]

^^^^+1

[klickitat jim]

Fun fact, this thread made me check. I get my CO2 from Oxarc and according to the data on their website, their beverage CO2 is 99.999% pure.

[The Beerery]

So what happens when you have science AND more experience!?!
I guess general hatred. 

FWIW we don’t have a boat, nor are we recruiting for people to row it. I think that’s the biggest misconception of this whole thing.

All we do is post professional scientific material, backed by sensory analysis and experience.  If the last one is fine for the rest of everyone, why the double standard?

The beauty of science is the no matter if you can or can’t comprehend and/or believe it, it doesn’t change the outcome.

Try something new or don’t.  You are the one who has to drink your beer and that determines where you want to take it.  It’s not like we receive anything for you trying it or not. 

I have said something like that a thousand times yet most of the time I just get condemned the messenger.  From the start we have NEVER said anyone makes bad beer, we have only offered options TO MAKE IT BETTER.  Yet that continues to be brought up.  It needs to be let go. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hopfenundmalz]

Fun fact, this thread made me check. I get my CO2 from Oxarc and according to the data on their website, their beverage CO2 is 99.999% pure.

I had to look up Oxarc. A PNW company.

[The Beerery]

Fun fact, this thread made me check. I get my CO2 from Oxarc and according to the data on their website, their beverage CO2 is 99.999% pure.

I had to look up Oxarc. A PNW company.

Good deal! Thanks for doing that.  I have been building a list of places and purity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[klickitat jim]

Fun fact, this thread made me check. I get my CO2 from Oxarc and according to the data on their website, their beverage CO2 is 99.999% pure.

I had to look up Oxarc. A PNW company.

Yes, which is convenient for me.

[mabrungard]

While this thread reinforced it, I know that I need to pay attention to the CO2 that I use in my brewing. Before a year or so ago, I would have said that CO2 was CO2.

[Robert]

I don't think anyone here has denied the reality of oxidative staling.   But to get this train back on track a bit:  What some of us question is whether certain measures really do make beer better _under given circumstances_.  What I haven't seen yet, and I'm sure you have this information, is, just how long does it take for stage B let alone stage C effects to reach taste threshold in beer kept cold throughout its lifetime?  I know that packaged beer released into uncontrollable trade conditions absolutely requires your recommended DO levels.  But many of us want to know, as we keep beer cold and serve it quickly, to what extent will changes become apparent?  In practice, it is necessary to "triage" all the measures we might choose from in bettering our beer, if we can't do EVERYTHING.  Maybe bottle CO2 will serve some of us well.

[klickitat jim]

"From the start we have NEVER said anyone makes bad beer, we have only offered options TO MAKE IT BETTER.  Yet that continues to be brought up.  It needs to be let go"

I don't know who all "we" includes, but in this thread it was said that "maybe many have just normalized many of the “Stage B” oxidation flavors in thier beers and it would take a tectonic shift in thier brewing to change their opinions."

Another comment was that our beer is oxidized already (I assume meaning that is because we don't do all of the other low oxy stuff) so, that's why we don't believe this or that... paraphrasing because none of this is that important to me, other than a fading hope that we might save this forum.

I reiterate what I've said before. Neither side is willing to step back. It's all about blame, and gotchas.

This used to be a really cool forum. It had a pub atmosphere. New people with really basic questions would get a ton of great help almost immediately. There was all different types of stuff being shared. But that was then. Now this low oxygen war has sucked the life out of it. And I don't care who started it, or who's right or wrong. It's sad. I'm probably going to just walk away.

[BrewBama]

As was asked earlier in the tread: how long does it take for the effects of oxidation to cause a perceptible difference?  IOW, if full LODO processes were followed the beer served on CO2 will go stale in X days/weeks/months. (Surely Bitburger cannot be the benchmark — if so disregard). Then on the other end of the scale, if no LODO techniques were followed the beer served on CO2 will go stale in Y days/weeks/months.  Do we have that kind of data to know the timeline we’re up against?

I run a four batch pipeline: one in a fermenter, one in a conditioning keg, one just tapped, and one near kicking. I drink 20 oz glasses, so 32 servings in a keg. One to two glasses after work, three or four per day on the weekend.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk