[denny]

The answer to the first viewer question was very enlightening about the lengths those two breweries go on the hot side to preclude oxygen.

Yes, Tobias talked about deoxygenating the process water in addition to the brewing liquor. I hadn't thought about that because I don't have any process water and I am not familiar with large-scale brewing. That whole discussion was about a process so far removed from what I do that it was not relevant to me. It just made me glad I don't have to deal with everything they do.

It's relevant to homebrewing in that we get 20-200x the oxygen exposure that they get. So if they take precautions, shouldn't you with 20-200x more oxidation potential?

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

Not necessarily. We don't have a board of directors or customers to satisfy. Just ourselves.

You sound like Ken Grossman. That's why the have the green energy. That's why the have multiple labs.

Very true.  But they do have customers.

[lupulus]

The answer to the first viewer question was very enlightening about the lengths those two breweries go on the hot side to preclude oxygen.

Yes, Tobias talked about deoxygenating the process water in addition to the brewing liquor. I hadn't thought about that because I don't have any process water and I am not familiar with large-scale brewing. That whole discussion was about a process so far removed from what I do that it was not relevant to me. It just made me glad I don't have to deal with everything they do.

It's relevant to homebrewing in that we get 20-200x the oxygen exposure that they get. So if they take precautions, shouldn't you with 20-200x more oxidation potential?

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

I didn't say not to take precautions, but I can't take the precautions they do, so their procedures are irrelevant. I don't have any process water to deoxygenate. I deoxygenate my brewing liquor but their procedure for doing it is way beyond what I can do, so hearing what they do doesn't really help me.

You can't do anything exactly like they do it, but you can adapt all the concepts.

Eg,
Deareating water is simple. Precautions can be taken to minimize oxygen uptake.

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

[Bilsch]

Not necessarily. We don't have a board of directors or customers to satisfy. Just ourselves.

I strive to give my one customer a product with the same attention to detail and quality the macros give to their many customers.

[mabrungard]

The thing that surprised me was the lengths those commercial breweries go to in reducing air contact throughout their brew house. To anyone that says LODO is BS, I have to point to this evidence of actual brewers and reams of textbook instruction.

I still say that LODO brewing doesn’t benefit all styles, but there are styles that do and the effects are impressive. Homebrewers are wise to do more in reducing hot side aeration in their system and procedures.

[narcout]

Can you elaborate on the flip side you mentioned?

I just meant that while commercial brewers have the advantage in terms of more favorable surface area to volume ratios, there are a lot of areas where I think homebrewers have an easier time reducing oxygen exposure (milling process, smaller volumes of water to deaerate, not having to pump huge volumes of beer long distances thorough large diameter tubing, etc.).  And I think the surface area to volume issue can be pretty easily mitigated by employing a mash cap.

[BrewBama]

I don’t think the question is about wether or not HSA exists. I don’t think we have anti-science types here. I believe it’s a question of choice. What does each individual brewer choose to do about it.

Three thoughts:

1. For some it may mean 100% pursuit of perfection. Becoming a student of brewing, idolizing certain brewing figures, replicating or approximating their model brewer or brewery. Their measure of success is TPO at or below industry standards.

Others may choose not to “let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” They may just want to brew a beer that they are proud of and can drink in ~ a month. The beer isn’t the center of the universe. It’s just beer.

I think either approach, and even somewhere on the spectrum between these two positions, is a great hobby to have. Each of these brewers is getting what they came for and both should be 100% accepted.

2. Some HSA steps are easily adopted by a bit of re-plumbing or a process change. Underletting or brewhaus liquor deoxygenization come to mind. Pretty easy to pull off.

Other steps may involve some more in-depth engineering and construction or even financial impact that may be unattractive or unattainable for one reason or another.

In any case each brewer has a choice of equipment and processes and a reason for that choice. Neither brewer should be cast out nor idolized for their choices.  Neither choice nor brewer for making that choice is better than the other.

3. Some brewers may agree with and strictly follow certain brewers and authors.  While others find enjoyment by employing techniques and brewing philosophy of a different set of brewers and authors. 

For every brewer/author with position A there in an equally impressive brewer/author with position B.   …and they both have peer reviewed science to back their positions.

So… even the experts can’t agree with what to do about it.  While some like Dr Charlie Bamforth say “I wouldn’t waste my time and effort on that.”  Others may disagree and choose to absolutely focus time and effort in that area.

To each his own.

[tommymorris]

I don’t think the question is about wether or not HSA exists. I don’t think we have anti-science types here. I believe it’s a question of choice. What does each individual brewer choose to do about it.

Three thoughts:

1. For some it may mean 100% pursuit of perfection. Becoming a student of brewing, idolizing certain brewing figures, replicating or approximating their model brewer or brewery. Their measure of success is TPO at or below industry standards.

Others may choose not to “let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” They may just want to brew a beer that they are proud of and can drink in ~ a month. The beer isn’t the center of the universe. It’s just beer.

I think either approach, and even somewhere on the spectrum between these two positions, is a great hobby to have. Each of these brewers is getting what they came for and both should be 100% accepted.

2. Some HSA steps are easily adopted by a bit of re-plumbing or a process change. Underletting or brewhaus liquor deoxygenization come to mind. Pretty easy to pull off.

Other steps may involve some more in-depth engineering and construction or even financial impact that may be unattractive or unattainable for one reason or another.

In any case each brewer has a choice of equipment and processes and a reason for that choice. Neither brewer should be cast out nor idolized for their choices.  Neither choice nor brewer for making that choice is better than the other.

3. Some brewers may agree with and strictly follow certain brewers and authors.  While others find enjoyment by employing techniques and brewing philosophy of a different set of brewers and authors. 

For every brewer/author with position A there in an equally impressive brewer/author with position B.   …and they both have peer reviewed science to back their positions.

So… even the experts can’t agree with what to do about it.  While some like Dr Charlie Bamforth say “I wouldn’t waste my time and effort on that.”  Others may disagree and choose to absolutely focus time and effort in that area.

To each his own.

Good points.

[lupulus]

I don’t think the question is about wether or not HSA exists. I don’t think we have anti-science types here. I believe it’s a question of choice. What does each individual brewer choose to do about it.

Three thoughts:

1. For some it may mean 100% pursuit of perfection. Becoming a student of brewing, idolizing certain brewing figures, replicating or approximating their model brewer or brewery. Their measure of success is TPO at or below industry standards.

Others may choose not to “let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” They may just want to brew a beer that they are proud of and can drink in ~ a month. The beer isn’t the center of the universe. It’s just beer.

I think either approach, and even somewhere on the spectrum between these two positions, is a great hobby to have. Each of these brewers is getting what they came for and both should be 100% accepted.

2. Some HSA steps are easily adopted by a bit of re-plumbing or a process change. Underletting or brewhaus liquor deoxygenization come to mind. Pretty easy to pull off.

Other steps may involve some more in-depth engineering and construction or even financial impact that may be unattractive or unattainable for one reason or another.

In any case each brewer has a choice of equipment and processes and a reason for that choice. Neither brewer should be cast out nor idolized for their choices.  Neither choice nor brewer for making that choice is better than the other.

3. Some brewers may agree with and strictly follow certain brewers and authors.  While others find enjoyment by employing techniques and brewing philosophy of a different set of brewers and authors. 

For every brewer/author with position A there in an equally impressive brewer/author with position B.   …and they both have peer reviewed science to back their positions.

So… even the experts can’t agree with what to do about it.  While some like Dr Charlie Bamforth say “I wouldn’t waste my time and effort on that.”  Others may disagree and choose to absolutely focus time and effort in that area.

To each his own.

Agreed.

I hope that the real all-stars, these pros,  from all types of beer styles, continue to guide us, tech us, help us get better at brewing.

In my view, after George Fix and Greg Noonan, for no good reason, homebrewing lost the connection with the real experts. The void has been filled with too much anecdotal evidence.

Please listen to these expert talks and let's learn together.





Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

[Bilsch]

I don’t think the question is about wether or not HSA exists. I don’t think we have anti-science types here. I believe it’s a question of choice. What does each individual brewer choose to do about it.

So… even the experts can’t agree with what to do about it.  While some like Dr Charlie Bamforth say “I wouldn’t waste my time and effort on that.”  Others may disagree and choose to absolutely focus time and effort in that area.

I'd also agree with everything you said.. except that last part about Bamforth. I have read some quotes from him 10 years ago where he basically said what you wrote. However since then he has changed his tune quite a bit. In a recent crowdcast he said not to bother with chasing HSA unless or until you get your cold side practice tightened up which makes perfect sense.

Seems to me we are running out of actual experts that can't agree about what to do with HSA.

[MDL]

I definitely found that interview enlightening. I have recently been implementing techniques to reduce HSA and the results have been fantastic.

It started with my cold side improvement first, purging kegs by filling to the brim with sanitizer and pushing that out with CO2 and Never opening the keg lid at any point after this. purging the tubing with co2 and injecting gelatin in a closed setup from a purged c02 flooded soda bottle with carbonator cap. Noticeable improvement.

Then I started boiling my sparge water due to a change in my brewing setup and I noticed a subtle improvement from that. Up to this point I hadn’t considered hsa yet, heard of it but believed it didnt matter to home brewing as is often said.

Next I tried spunding and wow! Huge difference. That’s when I researched co2 purity and ultimately found the LODO group.

The last few batches I have started using the yeast deox method on strike water, antitoxin sbt in the mash and sauergut in the mash and end of boil.

I couldn’t be happier with the results. It’s a little more work but not much and keeping the sauergut going is pretty cool.

Have only tried this on German style lagers pils and helles. Can’t report on any other styles yet.

[denny]

Not necessarily. We don't have a board of directors or customers to satisfy. Just ourselves.

I strive to give my one customer a product with the same attention to detail and quality the macros give to their many customers.

That is one of my goals also, although not the primary one.

[narcout]

I'd also agree with everything you said.. except that last part about Bamforth. I have read some quotes from him 10 years ago where he basically said what you wrote. However since then he has changed his tune quite a bit.

Not that any one person's opinion is dispositive (and just for the record I'm a believer if not currently a practitioner), but his book Freshness is from 2017 and I came away from Chapter 6 (which is titled "The Key Disagreement: How Important Is Upstream Oxidation?") with a different impression of his thoughts.

He basically ends the chapter with:

"Yeast will also reduce E-2-nonenal and other contributors to aged character, and it’s for that very reason that I personally question the significance of upstream
oxidation. Some argue that the carbonyls are not available to be reduced because they are attached either to proteins (see earlier discussion) or sulfur
dioxide. However, that attachment is reversible—and yeast will eventually “do the business” (see Fig. 6-1)."

But I guess 2017 is already 5 years ago, and I'm not in the mix enough to know if he's said anything different recently.

[BrewBama]

As recently as an article he wrote for Brewer and Distiller International dtd June 2021 based on the paper given to the 36th Biennial Convention of the IBD Asia-Pacific Section, March 2021 Dr Bamforth said, “…keeping the beer cold is a far better bet for keeping the product fresh than is all the tinkering the brewer can do with malts and brewhouse oxidation.”

Instead, he recommended focusing on minimizing air in packaging and keeping packaged beer cold. He said those are the two biggest things while recommending against dosing with sulfur based compounds.

So… I think there’s still recent conflicting information.  Which is actually good news for the home brewer because we can control the storage and serving temperature vs a commercial operation who uses a distributor and retailers/bars where the storage conditions are unknown.

Regardless, it boils down to who/what does a brewer base their decision on. There’s plenty of convincing evidence either way IMO.

Everyone has the freedom to research the information available (hopefully with an open mind) and make their own decisions on what to do about it.

“Do what you can, with what you've got, where you are.” (Although this quote is widely attributed to Theodore Roosevelt, he credits it, in his Autobiography, Chapter IX, to Squire Bill Widener of Widener's Valley, Virginia.)

[Thirsty_Monk]

I am certain that Sierra Nevada and Whitestephan do certain processes to extend the beer shelf life.

When you as a home brewer start shipping your beer across the country/ overseas in hot shipping containers then you can start fallowing their processes.

Till then it is just placebo effect. You feel good about what you are doing.

[Richard]

I like to make a distinction between process and outcome. The pro brewers have a great outcome, with a beer that can be shipped all over the world without going stale. they have industrial-scale processes that they use to achieve that result. While I think it is fine for home brewers to aspire to achieve the same results, I think it is a mistake to try to copy their techniques to achieve it. We simply can't or, in some cases (e.g. transfer to a horizontal tank to decrease settling times) don't need to do what they do. We need to find our own, affordable means to achieve the end we want.