John Palmer on LODO

[BigGutHeavyD]

3:00 minute mark.

Having never brewed or sampled a LODO brew myself what he says makes sense, though it seems more like a "it tastes like apples because we've always done it using process A" vs. "we can make it taste like oranges if we use process B".

I wonder if commercial beers like Bud are LODO brewed and if so, when did they make the change? Was there a period in time that the customer base noticed a huge difference? Not that I can recall. Would it be as dramatic as the brewing process change that was the demise of the Schlitz Beer?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schlitz_Brewing_Company#Decline_in_status_and_sale_to_Stroh

 

[Weezy]

: popcorn :

 

[passedpawn]

My thoughts:

• Holy cow, JP get some exercise.
• LODO has to be better. How much? Negligible to substantial. I have no idea. But it might be negligible

 

[allanmorgan]

My thoughts:

• Holy cow, JP get some exercise.

My first thought too!

 

[day_trippr]

Fat Shaming.
Reported.

Yeah, he doesn't seem impressed, but as he has zero experience with any LODO brew he's offering someone else's opinion at best.

More concerning to me is the whole sulfide thing (from the long running LODO thread). I don't want no eggy character in my beer...

Cheers!

 

[allanmorgan]

Ha! Nobody said anything about fat....sort of. But, really, portion control. I am an example of what not to eat and what to eat. Portion control. Seriously.

 

[allanmorgan]

That's 25 minutes I can't get back.

 

[Big Monk]

Fat Shaming.

Reported.



Yeah, he doesn't seem impressed, but as he has zero experience with any LODO brew he's offering someone else's opinion at best.



More concerning to me is the whole sulfide thing (from the long running LODO thread). I don't want no eggy character in my beer...



Cheers!

The goal is to get your antioxidant dose as low as achievable, with zero being achievable if you get your system tight.

The key steps to avoiding issues with excess sulfites are:

1.) Limit your sulfite dose based on your systems consumption

2.) limit extra sulfates. Skip the CaSO4, MgSO4, etc.

3.) note that spunding, if you try it, is going to trap some of the sulfur based volatiles normally expelled though air locks, etc.

4.) Ales seem more susceptible to negative sulfur based flavors. Ale yeast seem to tolerate sulfur less than lager years.

Note that for every story about a Low Oxygen sulfur bomb there is a story of a Low Oxygen beer that wasn't.

 

[techbrau]

There is evidence that sulfites have been used as antioxidants in the mash and boil going back over 100 years (see "The Influence of Sulphites in the Mash‐Tun and the Copper" by A.E. Barry, 1905)

On top of that, it was common practice during those days to preboil all brewing liquor, and at the commercial scale there is naturally less oxygen ingress due to the larger surface area to volume ratios of the brewing vessels, as compared to a homebrew system. So John mistaken when he claims that "historically it never happened."

John is right that comparing regular beer to low oxygen beer is like comparing apples and oranges. Unfortunately, it sounds like he didn't consider the possibility that recipes can and should be reformulated for LoDO beers.

100% pilsner malt lagers may be fine for conventional brewing systems, but end up a bit bland in a LoDO system. However, in a LoDO system you can add 5-10% caramel malt to your light lager recipe without making the beer cloying, while still keeping a pale gold color, and achieving flavors that are otherwise unobtainable in a conventional brewing system. You could probably fool most homebrewers into believing that there was no caramel malt in the beer, because the flavors are so different from what they're used to.

I feel a bit bad for the people who brew their same old recipes LoDO, decide that the beer became too bland, and then abandon the technique without bothering to explore the possibilities a bit more.

Of course, they could also just be using this video as an opportunity to trash LoDO because their kettles aren't designed for LoDO, and they've got money to make.

 

[Weezy]

Of course, they could also just be using this video as an opportunity to trash LoDO because their kettles aren't designed for LoDO, and they've got money to make.

Was this necessary?

 

[schematix]

Was this necessary?

It's a very valid point. If everyone realized the benefits of low oxygen brewing and wanted to buy fit for purpose equipment then many vendors would have to redesign their products.

Note that most vendors of home brew equipment today are just selling equipment made for other industries with a different brand label on it. The retooling costs could be staggering!

People the likes of Denny, and JP have a huge vested interest in the status quo. Always important to consider someone's ulterior motives when they speak in public.

 

[masaba]

People the likes of Denny, and JP have a huge vested interest in the status quo. Always important to consider someone's ulterior motives when they speak in public.

I think John Blichman would come out with a line of LODO home brewing equipment in no time if there were a market for it.

 

[Weezy]

John Palmer has earned the right to a public opinion on brewing processes.

That and...

LODO is the Dianetics of brewing.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Blind taste testers (oblivious to the nature of the difference) at both 'Experimental Brewing' and 'Brulosophy' have generally preferred the taste of conventional brews when tasted against LODO brews made side by side with conventional, and with the only difference being LODO vs. conventional under carefully controlled brewing conditions. It may just be another contrived marketing means whereby to soak the brewer for $$$ in the search for better brewing results. The only positive that generally seems to come of LODO (at the home brewer level at least) is a shade or two lighter SRM (if that is really a positive). Mask the color difference and the blind taste tester generally prefers conventionally brewed beer.

 

[MSK_Chess]

Blind taste testers (oblivious to the nature of the difference) at both 'Experimental Brewing' and 'Brulosophy' have generally preferred the taste of conventional brews when tasted against LODO brews made side by side with conventional, and with the only difference being LODO vs. conventional under carefully controlled brewing conditions. It may just be another contrived marketing means whereby to soak the brewer for $$$ in the search for better brewing results. The only positive that generally seems to come of LODO (at the home brewer level at least) is a shade or two lighter SRM (if that is really a positive). Mask the color difference and the blind taste tester generally prefers conventionally brewed beer.

yes not to mention the 50% efficiency that the Brulosophy experiment only managed to get with LODO. I have always understood that oxygen was good for the mash

Oxidation of polyphenols in the mash helps them to bind to proteins and precipitate out of solution. This increases turbidity in the short term, but that turbidity filters out in the mash bed, hot break, and cold break. -

Stephenson, W.H.; Biawa, J.-P.; Miracle, R.E.; Bamforth, C.W. (2003) Laboratory-Scale Studies on the Impact of Oxygen on Mashing Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists

http://immaculatebrewery.com/oxygen-and-mashing/#fn:11

I have a theory that decoction mashing is a kind of LODO mash technique anyway because oxygen is driven off when the decoction is pulled, rested and boiled. I could be wrong of course though but I dunno, it makes sense.

 

[allanmorgan]

John Palmer has earned the right to a public opinion on brewing processes.

That and...

LODO is the Dianetics of brewing.

Yes he has in many, many ways. I will brew on his principles just to get better at what I brew.

I get the LODO, their methods and reasoning, but really? If you don't do this, you are brewing a bad beer or at least, an inferior beer.

Do your LODO, good for you, but that is not how it was done, nor am I brewing a bad or inferior beer.

Do what you need to do. All good. Happy times.

 

[Big Monk]

Blind taste testers (oblivious to the nature of the difference) at both 'Experimental Brewing' and 'Brulosophy' have generally preferred the taste of conventional brews when tasted against LODO brews made side by side with conventional, and with the only difference being LODO vs. conventional under carefully controlled brewing conditions. It may just be another contrived marketing means whereby to soak the brewer for $$$ in the search for better brewing results. The only positive that generally seems to come of LODO (at the home brewer level at least) is a shade or two lighter SRM (if that is really a positive). Mask the color difference and the blind taste tester generally prefers conventionally brewed beer.

You can't seriously think this.

Firstly the Brulosophy experiment was a failure. I applaud the effort but to call that conducted "under carefully controlled brewing conditions" is a stretch.

Secondly, the EB experiment was testing Brewtan, which while very useful, is NOT an antioxidant.

Lastly, as passionate as I am, and as others are, about Low Oxygen Brewing, there stands to be no huge marketing schemes or money to be made off of it. It is a niche market within a niche market, pure and simple.

Other than adding antioxidants and minimizing O2 uptake, its mostly just sound brewing practices.

 

[Big Monk]

John Palmer has earned the right to a public opinion on brewing processes.

That and...

LODO is the Dianetics of brewing.

Low Oxygen Brewing is 99% good brewing practice and 1% chemical antioxidants and mechanical O2 avoidance. Brewing Scientology it is not.

 

[Weezy]

Low Oxygen Brewing is 99% good brewing practice and 1% chemical antioxidants and mechanical O2 avoidance. Brewing Scientology it is not.

You're right. The actual brewing process isnt scientology. This is scientology:

It's a very valid point. If everyone realized the benefits of low oxygen brewing and wanted to buy fit for purpose equipment then many vendors would have to redesign their products.

Note that most vendors of home brew equipment today are just selling equipment made for other industries with a different brand label on it. The retooling costs could be staggering!

People the likes of Denny, and JP have a huge vested interest in the status quo. Always important to consider someone's ulterior motives when they speak in public.

Its the way peiple proselytize it.

 

[MSK_Chess]

Low Oxygen Brewing is 99% good brewing practice and 1% chemical antioxidants and mechanical O2 avoidance. Brewing Scientology it is not.

I like the idea but in a more traditional sense. I don't like the idea of adding Sodium metabisulfite to my beautifully soft Scottish water. The brulosophy experiment that was refereed to earlier managed to get a very low oxygen count simply by pre boiling the mash water, something like .2mg/L. Rapidly cooling the pre boiled water to strike temp would also help as it picks up something like 1-3mg/L sitting at atmospheric pressure I read somewhere. If we are recirculating and I do then making sure that the wort is recirculated below the mash level so as to avoid surface oxygenation would help. The article that I cite below mentions reviving the acid rest.

Phytic acid has been shown to inhibit the action of PPO and significantly lower enzymatic browning reactions. - http://immaculatebrewery.com/oxygen-and-mashing/#fn:11

and also mash hopping because certain elements from hops serve as powerful anti oxidants.

These I would be willing to try to attempt to ascertain if it had any impact on the beers that I brew and are well within the realm of almost every home brewer to try without the addition of expensive testing equipment or major modifications to ones set up.

 

[Big Monk]

I like the idea but in a more traditional sense. I don't like the idea of adding Sodium metabisulfite to my beautifully soft Scottish water. The brulosophy experiment that was refereed to earlier managed to get a very low oxygen count simply by pre boiling the mash water, something like .2mg/L. Rapidly cooling the pre boiled water to strike temp would also help as it picks up something like 1-3mg/L sitting at atmospheric pressure I read somewhere. If we are recirculating and I do then making sure that the wort is recirculated below the mash level so as to avoid surface oxygenation would help. The article that I cite below mentions reviving the acid rest.



Phytic acid has been shown to inhibit the action of PPO and significantly lower enzymatic browning reactions. - http://immaculatebrewery.com/oxygen-and-mashing/#fn:11



and also mash hopping because certain elements from hops serve as powerful anti oxidants.



These I would be willing to try to attempt to ascertain if it had any impact on the beers that I brew and are well within the realm of almost every home brewer to try without the addition of expensive testing equipment or major modifications to ones set up.

I hear you but preboiling alone won't do it. Let me rephrase that, most people also need active scavenging in the form of a chemical antioxidants. With that said, it is entirely possible to have such a tight system, mechanically speaking, that antioxidants are not required. That was a major milestone crossed recently by my collaborator, an original GBF member and co-founder of LOB.com. So where there is a will and dedication there is a way to use that special Scottish water of yours untainted.

 

[schematix]

The brulosphy experiment just showed what a ignorant joke they are. You can't knowingly make such a drastically different beer and try to taste test it. At best it's just stupidity and worst its ignorance. At a minimum there should have been a re-brew to fix the OG difference. That alone more than explains the results. If you can't agree with that then there's nothing else to discuss.

I can't say every low oxygen beer I've ever made has been perfect, but all of them have had a quality I was never able to achieve in 60+ conventional brews.

Get over the elitist view of the original PDF - yah you can't make traditional German lagers like they do in Germany without it - but you can make good beer. Take an objective look at the process from the perspective of just making better beer. ********************. It's something you can build on a little at a time.

 

[MSK_Chess]

I hear you but preboiling alone won't do it. Let me rephrase that, most people also need active scavenging in the form of a chemical antioxidants. With that said, it is entirely possible to have such a tight system, mechanically speaking, that antioxidants are not required. That was a major milestone crossed recently by my collaborator, an original GBF member and co-founder of LOB.com. So where there is a will and dedication there is a way to use that special Scottish water of yours untainted.

Well thats promising Honestly we are all interested in techniques that will have a positive impact on our beers and being new here I did not realize that this subject was so polarized. I don't pre boil my water at present because I have access to gallons and gallons of de-ionised water, still perhaps we all should. What did your collaborator do to get the system that he uses so mechanically tight?

 

[allanmorgan]

The brulosphy experiment just showed what a ignorant joke they are. You can't knowingly make such a drastically different beer and try to taste test it. At best it's just stupidity and worst its ignorance. At a minimum there should have been a re-brew to fix the OG difference. That alone more than explains the results. If you can't agree with that then there's nothing else to discuss.

I can't say every low oxygen beer I've ever made has been perfect, but all of them have had a quality I was never able to achieve in 60+ conventional brews.

Get over the elitist view of the original PDF - yah you can't make traditional German lagers like they do in Germany without it - but you can make good beer. Take an objective look at the process from the perspective of just making better beer. ********************. It's something you can build on a little at a time.

That's a lot of words. Me. Nope.

 

[Big Monk]

The brulosphy experiment just showed what a ignorant joke they are. You can't knowingly make such a drastically different beer and try to taste test it. At best it's just stupidity and worst its ignorance. At a minimum there should have been a re-brew to fix the OG difference. That alone more than explains the results. If you can't agree with that then there's nothing else to discuss.

I can't say every low oxygen beer I've ever made has been perfect, but all of them have had a quality I was never able to achieve in 60+ conventional brews.

Get over the elitist view of the original PDF - yah you can't make traditional German lagers like they do in Germany without it - but you can make good beer. Take an objective look at the process from the perspective of just making better beer. ********************. It's something you can build on a little at a time.

You are doing yourself, as well as people with a potential interest in the process, a disservice by engaging with people in this manner.

I certainly applaud the enthusiasm (I was there at one time as well) and the support for the site but: It's just beer on the internet! No one should be getting bent out of shape about it.

 

[Big Monk]

Well thats promising Honestly we are all interested in techniques that will have a positive impact on our beers and being new here I did not realize that this subject was so polarized. I don't pre boil my water at present because I have access to gallons and gallons of de-ionised water, still perhaps we all should. What did your collaborator do to get the system that he uses so mechanically tight?

The biggest "bang for your buck" modifications are the cheapest to implement. Underletting the mash costs you no additional money. Milling your grain (assuming you have a mill) as close to dough in as possible costs you no money. Adding a mash cap can be as cheap as an extra pot lid that floats on the mash or a correctly sized SS cake pan that floats. Sodium metabisulfite is also very cheap. Gently stirring to avoid splashing and gentle transfers from kettle to kettle cost you no extra money. Tight hose connections, etc. should be no extra cost as well.

Milling just before dough + underletting the mash + mash cap + pre-boiling + tight connections + gentle stirring + gentle transfers = the potential for no hot side Oxygen uptake.

Now everyone is not going to start at that point which make metabisulfite a key point of active Oxygen scavenging until you can get your system tight enough to start reducing dose.

It's a marathon, not a sprint.

 

[schematix]

You are doing yourself, as well as people with a potential interest in the process, a disservice by engaging with people in this manner.

???

 

[oujens]

Lots of information out there these days of "do this not that" and "that's wrong do it this way". The one thing I appreciate about the LODO paper is that there were published articles linked to it. I would hope Palmer could add a little more than writing it off based on experience of some friends even though he originally wrote HSA was a concern in How to Brew. Does his published work trump that of other respected researchers in the brewing industry? Honest question here. I just hope one day we can rely on documented facts and not garage experiments to outline what's truth or myth. I think we can all agree the message boards are mixed with both good and bad information. No bad information is intended, just a result of amateurs (I'm guilty too) trying to help another out based on personal experience.

 

[techbrau]

Does his published work trump that of other respected researchers in the brewing industry? Honest question here. I just hope one day we can rely on documented facts and not garage experiments to outline what's truth or myth. I think we can all agree the message boards are mixed with both good and bad information. No bad information is intended, just a result of amateurs (I'm guilty too) trying to help another out based on personal experience.

If you want an honest answer to the question of whether homebrew how-to books trump professional brewing textbooks, the answer is no. There is an enormous divide in the quality and depth of information in professional literature as compared to homebrewing books written by hobbyists-turned-gurus. If you have any kind of technical background, I would suggest completely ignoring the homebrewing books out there and just buying what is arguably the bible of professional brewing:

https://www.vlb-berlin.org/en/technology-brewing-and-malting

It's quite literally the only brewing book you need. There are a few other decent professional textbooks out there, but none are as comprehensive or up-to-date as Kunze.

 

[oujens]

If you want an honest answer to the question of whether homebrew how-to books trump professional brewing textbooks, the answer is no. There is an enormous divide in the quality and depth of information in professional literature as compared to homebrewing books written by hobbyists-turned-gurus. If you have any kind of technical background, I would suggest completely ignoring the homebrewing books out there and just buying what is arguably the bible of professional brewing:

https://www.vlb-berlin.org/en/technology-brewing-and-malting

It's quite literally the only brewing book you need. There are a few other decent professional textbooks out there, but none are as comprehensive or up-to-date as Kunze.

I'm not familiar with his credentials so that's why I ask. What you described has been my issue with home brewing...not enough evidence to support claims. Or maybe I should say the wrong information backing up claims. I'll admit I'm 2 batches into LODO, but I feel I've learned more during this time than I did in the previous 5 years I've been brewing. We will see if I can get it to translate to my system. So far batch #2 is good, but still might need to tweak that SMB dose.

 

[day_trippr]

For real?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/392169034X/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

Pricey, but at least graspable...
https://www.siebelinstitute.com/products/bookstore/technology-brewing-and-malting/

 

[RevKev]

Don't cite a secondary source, interpret your own meaning from primary sources. Or do your own experiments, when others do experiments and keep pour notes it's the equivalent of ****ting on a brick and calling it gold

These textbooks are even more outrageous than those assigned to me during grad school... I hope these "professionals" are better people than they seem

 

[mongoose33]

For real?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/392169034X/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

Pricey, but at least graspable...
https://www.siebelinstitute.com/products/bookstore/technology-brewing-and-malting/

Or this:

https://www.vlb-berlin.org/en/technology-brewing-and-malting

It's 149 euros. At today's exchange rate that's about $165.

I wonder if I can find this via interlibrary loan....

 

[day_trippr]

Not sure this thread has legs so I'll burn a post here instead of the "epic" thread (which I'm only up to reply #490 )

I am intrigued by oxidation avoidance - on both sides. I've been demonstrably rather OC about the cold side and as I've refined my process and equipment the benefits have been plainly evident - particularly notable in retention of color and prominence of desired characters over time.

The hot side, otoh, I've only done the most obvious of oxidation avoidance techniques, mostly due to other intentions. I've always conditioned my grain before milling (because it makes lautering so much easier) which also means I mill brew day morning because I'm not looking for a lacto fest. I underlet my mash because it's actually convenient given the design of my rig. I recirculate with a return that rests directly atop the wort because that's how an autosparge works. And the HLT-to-BK transfer is via the recirculation port at the bottom of the BK that was there anyway. Finally, my BS2 equipment profile is set for 11.1% boil-off rate because that's what it worked out to after a few brews and it seemed vigorous enough.

So, clearly not a lot of effort so far.

I plan on making a point on the next batch to pre-boil my strike and sparge liquor, chill quickly before strike, dial my boil down a scoche, and see if I can come up with a mash cap that fits my process (with an autosparge that could be a challenge) and see what happens.

Won't be a Helles though I'm thinking I need a Saison on tap.

I might be able to get access to an O2 meter. Need to work on that...

Cheers!

 

[MSK_Chess]

John Palmer has a point though, the Germans and the Czechs especially have been making top notch Pilsners and Lagers for hundreds of years without adding SMB to their water and mashing and boiling in large copper vessels. Furthermore Bohemian malt is not as modified as other European malts and will definitely require additional rest. Pilsen water is so soft that there is not enough ions to facilitate a chemical reaction from the malts themselves to reach optimal Ph thus they overcame this with the acid rest which we know is an anti-oxidant. Furthermore the beers were and are still made with a decoction mash schedule, a double or triple decoction which I think is largely responsible for the flavour and anti-oxidisation of the sweet wort (although I have no empirical evidence that this later claim is the case) It seems logical to me that if you want to brew beers like the Germans and the Czechs follow their procedures.

 

[MSK_Chess]

The biggest "bang for your buck" modifications are the cheapest to implement. Underletting the mash costs you no additional money. Milling your grain (assuming you have a mill) as close to dough in as possible costs you no money. Adding a mash cap can be as cheap as an extra pot lid that floats on the mash or a correctly sized SS cake pan that floats. Sodium metabisulfite is also very cheap. Gently stirring to avoid splashing and gentle transfers from kettle to kettle cost you no extra money. Tight hose connections, etc. should be no extra cost as well.

Milling just before dough + underletting the mash + mash cap + pre-boiling + tight connections + gentle stirring + gentle transfers = the potential for no hot side Oxygen uptake.

Now everyone is not going to start at that point which make metabisulfite a key point of active Oxygen scavenging until you can get your system tight enough to start reducing dose.

It's a marathon, not a sprint.

Sure I like these ideas. Not sure what a mash cap is though.

 

[Big Monk]

John Palmer has a point though, the Germans and the Czechs especially have been making top notch Pilsners and Lagers for hundreds of years without adding SMB to their water and mashing in large copper vessels. Furthermore Bohemian malt is not as modified as other European malts and will definitely require additional rest. Pilsen water is so soft that there is not enough ions to facilitate a chemical reaction from the malts themselves to reach optimal Ph thus they overcame this with the acid rest which we know is an anti-oxidant. Furthermore the beers were and are still made with a decoction mash schedule, a double or triple decoction which I think is largely responsible for the flavour and anti-oxidisation of the sweet wort (although I have no empirical evidence that this later claim is the case) It seems logical to me that if you want to brew beers like the Germans and the Czechs follow their procedures.

1.) They don't use sodium metabisulfite. That is a homebrew hack to add active oxygen scavenging to the mix. They are merely using the physics of large scale brewing (square-cube law) to prevent the uptake of Oxygen. They do, however, De-aerate their water.

2.) They may have brewed for hundreds of years in copper, and there are many regional and larger scale breweries that still do, I'm sure, but the beer that the German macros are making now is not the same as even 50 years ago so the whole "they've always done it this way" argument doesn't hold as much weight as one would like. Add in the fact that even some of the copper vessels you see in the present day are actually SS line and...

3.) I'm sure the Czechs and some German brewers are still using decoction but many have left it behind in favor of the step mash. Also remember that decoction on the large scale is drastically different than on our scale. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

4.) Not sure why an Acid rest is considered an anti-oxidant but soft water usually entails just adding mineral acid or sauergut, which in most commercial breweries is going to be readily available. Having read the article you are referencing on enzymatic browning, I think it can be said that it is the presence of Oxygen that initiates that reaction, so eliminating Oxygen stops the browning at its source. My take at least. It all goes back to Oxygen mitigation. It is talked about clear as day all the way to DeClerck in "A Textbook of Brewing" which is 75+ years old.

At the end of the day I'm sure all the discussion is good and gets the ideas out there to people who are willing to discuss it with this level of detail. There is, however, still a great deal of misinformation and confusion out there about the concepts of Low Oxygen brewing. There are a ton of people, homebrewers and professionals alike way more knowledgeable than I am.

 

[MSK_Chess]

1.) They don't use sodium metabisulfite. That is a homebrew hack to add active oxygen scavenging to the mix. They are merely using the physics of large scale brewing (square-cube law) to prevent the uptake of Oxygen. They do, however, De-aerate their water.

2.) They may have brewed for hundreds of years in copper, and there are many regional and larger scale breweries that still do, I'm sure, but the beer that the German macros are making now is not the same as even 50 years ago so the whole "they've always done it this way" argument doesn't hold as much weight as one would like. Add in the fact that even some of the copper vessels you see in the present day are actually SS line and...

3.) I'm sure the Czechs and some German brewers are still using decoction but many have left it behind in favor of the step mash. Also remember that decoction on the large scale is drastically different than on our scale. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

4.) Not sure why an Acid rest is considered an anti-oxidant but soft water usually entails just adding mineral acid or sauergut, which in most commercial breweries is going to be readily available. Having read the article you are referencing on enzymatic browning, I think it can be said that it is the presence of Oxygen that initiates that reaction, so eliminating Oxygen stops the browning at its source. My take at least. It all goes back to Oxygen mitigation. It is talked about clear as day all the way to DeClerck in "A Textbook of Brewing" which is 75+ years old.

At the end of the day I'm sure all the discussion is good and gets the ideas out there to people who are willing to discuss it with this level of detail. There is, however, still a great deal of misinformation and confusion out there about the concepts of Low Oxygen brewing. There are a ton of people, homebrewers and professionals alike way more knowledgeable than I am.

Ok I understand. Let me address point no.4 first.

In keeping with the traditional aspect of brewing, you might want to revive the acid rest. When you start a mash at between 86F and 122F (30 - 50C), phytic acid forms and naturally lowers the mash pH. Phytic acid has been shown to inhibit the action of PPO (polyphenol oxidase) and significantly lower enzymatic browning reactions. Maybe those old brewers knew more than they let on? - http://immaculatebrewery.com/oxygen-and-mashing/#fn:11 (EDIT. I see you have already addressed this ]

As for decoction mashing v step mash (I personally do step mashing), yes its understood that 'technically' there is no need to do a decoction mash, however many breweries still do it because it imparts a more robust flavour from compounds in the husks and melanoidin reactions during the boiling of the decoction. It appears to me that because dissolved oxygen levels are temperature dependent the decoction mash should be an excellent way to make a LODO beer because we are essentially de-oxidising the wort at every step.

Yes sharing information is great and one must appreciate the efforts that you and other guys are making in trying to help us identify areas that we can improve upon. I still don't really understand why the subject is so controversial and divisive though.

 

[Big Monk]

As for decoction mashing v step mash (I personally do step mashing), yes its understood that 'technically' there is no need to do a decoction mash, however many breweries still do it because it imparts a more robust flavour from compounds in the husks and melanoidin reactions during the boiling of the decoction. It appears to me that because dissolved oxygen levels are temperature dependent the decoction mash should be an excellent way to make a LODO beer because we are essentially de-oxidising the wort at every step.

The problem is that homebrewers have to physically remove a portion of the grist for decoction. This exposes the wort to Oxygen pre- and post-decoction. Large scale purveyors of the decoction are pulling their decoctions from below and returning it there as well.

So the opposite of what you propose above is true.

 

[MSK_Chess]

The problem is that homebrewers have to physically remove a portion of the grist for decoction. This exposes the wort to Oxygen pre- and post-decoction. Large scale purveyors of the decoction are pulling their decoctions from below and returning it there as well.

So the opposite of what you propose above is true.

Yes this is absolutely true but we are going to boil the decoction after pulling the wort. If we take a two stage enhanced decoction, dough in at acid rest using pre boiled water and underletting etc then when the decoction is pulled, heated, rested it will be boiled. When some of it is returned to the main mash the temperature will rise driving out dissolved oxygen in the main mash while the rest of the decoction boils. This is added again to the main mash to facilitate reaching scarification level again raising the temperature and driving out any dissolved oxygen. When it is pulled again for the last time, it will be boiled and returned to the main mash to reach mash out. Thus even though we are physically removing the decoction (making oxygenation possible thorough surface aeration) We are compensating by raising the temperature at every stage which should drive out dissolved oxygen at least in theory.

Id love to see some data on dissolved oxygen at the end of a decoction mash.