Some musings on LODO brewing
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:28 pm
HI all,
I don’t have the chance to read many other forums these days, and not much time to even post here this summer. But I get some daily updates from a few forums and folks (Bryan) send me links now and then. I haven’t brewed in a month and it’s the middle of summer here so I’m kind of longing for a cool brew day. I'll babble a bit instead and try to at least get my head back into thinking about German beer (after having had some tasty Warsteiner Pils this week).
I see discussions about why to do something or how to do something or requests for data, proof, process, etc.
Brewing is an evolving industry and every brewery is dynamic, for a multitude of reasons. For stylistic preference, local ingredients, local climate, tradition, customer expectation, availability of capital for various capacities and quality/sophistication of brew system. It’s hard to simply say “follow this…process” without the brewer understanding what is going on and what levers they need to adjust to their equipment and situation to achieve the described results. Especially as the tolerances become tighter.
Consider the move from open fermenters to stainless CCT’s fermented under pressure and the evolution of various fermenter designs – barrels, concrete fermenters, and now stainless. These changes have happened rapidly over recent history and are adopted (or not) by various breweries for various reasons. Ideas that don’t work drop off the radar very fast, but others endure. And provide varying results in the different situations.
Production and management of raw ingredients is constantly evolving. Agriculture is a highly technical industry with many many variables at play, as well as the evolution of malting process. I always see a distinction between commercial brewing and homebrewing where it is said that many things from commercial brewing don’t apply to homebrewing. I think that really depends on the goal and often beer style. If you look at the big picture, the situations where commercial brewing practices and issues do not apply are in the vast minority. And even those are worth exploring to understand the impact (Techbrau often mentions the square cube law in relation to oxygen exposure to mash and wort during the brewing process and fermentation). Likely a situation where we, as homebrewers, are heavily impacted by the affects of oxygen on our comparatively tiny batches versus what a large volume brewery can get away with. And thus need to explore if, and how, we need to compensate for that to achieve the results we want.
My point is, there are many many ways to skin a cat, and each variable in each different process will have a different impact on the final product.
When Bryan and I originally set out to brew authentic German light lagers we were working with what we knew and had tried, pretty much everything a typical homebrewer would do, everything we’d learned from the homebrewing community we have all been a part of. Starting from there the group grew and we did more experiments. Learned what worked and what didn’t – most importantly, what did and didn’t within a specific context. For example, all the futzing we did cold side and concern for O2 management later in the process didn’t affect the overall flavor profile we were after. Change all that and still have the same sub-par beer. It wasn’t until the Techbrau/Bryan O2 mash realization that we started heading on that course, and then cold fermentation and spunden later made sense as a solution to a new problem.
But we didn’t start with “how can we make the most convoluted, complex process and make certain an Exbeeriment will always be disputable if the reported results don’t agree with what we think”. We started with “how do we capture that great German flavor”? Ideally with the least effort needed, but that’s not the driving factor. It was a cumulative process. Once the low O2 mash was found as a major contributing factor, the next challenges were around how to maximize the flavor and preserve it.
The resulting process is actually a nice balance of practicality that is very compatible with homebrewing. Look at this not primarily from the perspective of “how do I make my homebrewing easier”, but “how do I leverage ideas from the best of a modern brewhouse’s features (O2 mitigation, low stress boil, etc), and adapt that to homebrewing”. The basic homebrewing model is based on 1800s technology and methodology. Yes, we’re using alloy kettles, but they could just as well be a cast iron pot over a wood fire when compared to a modern boiling system. Same for O2 management, we are far from being Paulaner or any other modern brewery. So looking at it from that perspective, spunden and secondary fermentation is a handy (albiet “old school”) method of solving the problem of not having an ultra modern brewhouse with deoxygenators, access to boilers, etc.
And different strokes for different folks. Some folks will like the results of LODO brewing (in a variety of styles not just light lagers) and some won’t. Some folks might not detect any difference, as we’ve observed from the polarity of camps of folks who are able to identify the German beer flavor we’re talking about versus those who cannot. That’s OK…it is what it is, some folks love the fresh tasting flavor of cilantro, some folks think it tastes like soap. Everyone has their perceptions and things they value.
At the end of the day, I greatly appreciate all of the thought and consideration folks give to the LODO ideas, whether they [philosophically as well as empirically] agree with or dispute them. The concepts are well worth considering, as well as understanding the context of current brewing techniques relative to the history of brewing and the evolution (and thus changes to beer flavor, quality and market preferences) that occurs over time.
I encourage continued questioning, discussion, experimentation, and please report back. We created this forum and put our findings out there as a way to help widen the net of thinking and “crowd source” further discovery. No process is set in stone and must continue to evolve and mature.
Brandon
I don’t have the chance to read many other forums these days, and not much time to even post here this summer. But I get some daily updates from a few forums and folks (Bryan) send me links now and then. I haven’t brewed in a month and it’s the middle of summer here so I’m kind of longing for a cool brew day. I'll babble a bit instead and try to at least get my head back into thinking about German beer (after having had some tasty Warsteiner Pils this week).
I see discussions about why to do something or how to do something or requests for data, proof, process, etc.
Brewing is an evolving industry and every brewery is dynamic, for a multitude of reasons. For stylistic preference, local ingredients, local climate, tradition, customer expectation, availability of capital for various capacities and quality/sophistication of brew system. It’s hard to simply say “follow this…process” without the brewer understanding what is going on and what levers they need to adjust to their equipment and situation to achieve the described results. Especially as the tolerances become tighter.
Consider the move from open fermenters to stainless CCT’s fermented under pressure and the evolution of various fermenter designs – barrels, concrete fermenters, and now stainless. These changes have happened rapidly over recent history and are adopted (or not) by various breweries for various reasons. Ideas that don’t work drop off the radar very fast, but others endure. And provide varying results in the different situations.
Production and management of raw ingredients is constantly evolving. Agriculture is a highly technical industry with many many variables at play, as well as the evolution of malting process. I always see a distinction between commercial brewing and homebrewing where it is said that many things from commercial brewing don’t apply to homebrewing. I think that really depends on the goal and often beer style. If you look at the big picture, the situations where commercial brewing practices and issues do not apply are in the vast minority. And even those are worth exploring to understand the impact (Techbrau often mentions the square cube law in relation to oxygen exposure to mash and wort during the brewing process and fermentation). Likely a situation where we, as homebrewers, are heavily impacted by the affects of oxygen on our comparatively tiny batches versus what a large volume brewery can get away with. And thus need to explore if, and how, we need to compensate for that to achieve the results we want.
My point is, there are many many ways to skin a cat, and each variable in each different process will have a different impact on the final product.
When Bryan and I originally set out to brew authentic German light lagers we were working with what we knew and had tried, pretty much everything a typical homebrewer would do, everything we’d learned from the homebrewing community we have all been a part of. Starting from there the group grew and we did more experiments. Learned what worked and what didn’t – most importantly, what did and didn’t within a specific context. For example, all the futzing we did cold side and concern for O2 management later in the process didn’t affect the overall flavor profile we were after. Change all that and still have the same sub-par beer. It wasn’t until the Techbrau/Bryan O2 mash realization that we started heading on that course, and then cold fermentation and spunden later made sense as a solution to a new problem.
But we didn’t start with “how can we make the most convoluted, complex process and make certain an Exbeeriment will always be disputable if the reported results don’t agree with what we think”. We started with “how do we capture that great German flavor”? Ideally with the least effort needed, but that’s not the driving factor. It was a cumulative process. Once the low O2 mash was found as a major contributing factor, the next challenges were around how to maximize the flavor and preserve it.
The resulting process is actually a nice balance of practicality that is very compatible with homebrewing. Look at this not primarily from the perspective of “how do I make my homebrewing easier”, but “how do I leverage ideas from the best of a modern brewhouse’s features (O2 mitigation, low stress boil, etc), and adapt that to homebrewing”. The basic homebrewing model is based on 1800s technology and methodology. Yes, we’re using alloy kettles, but they could just as well be a cast iron pot over a wood fire when compared to a modern boiling system. Same for O2 management, we are far from being Paulaner or any other modern brewery. So looking at it from that perspective, spunden and secondary fermentation is a handy (albiet “old school”) method of solving the problem of not having an ultra modern brewhouse with deoxygenators, access to boilers, etc.
And different strokes for different folks. Some folks will like the results of LODO brewing (in a variety of styles not just light lagers) and some won’t. Some folks might not detect any difference, as we’ve observed from the polarity of camps of folks who are able to identify the German beer flavor we’re talking about versus those who cannot. That’s OK…it is what it is, some folks love the fresh tasting flavor of cilantro, some folks think it tastes like soap. Everyone has their perceptions and things they value.
At the end of the day, I greatly appreciate all of the thought and consideration folks give to the LODO ideas, whether they [philosophically as well as empirically] agree with or dispute them. The concepts are well worth considering, as well as understanding the context of current brewing techniques relative to the history of brewing and the evolution (and thus changes to beer flavor, quality and market preferences) that occurs over time.
I encourage continued questioning, discussion, experimentation, and please report back. We created this forum and put our findings out there as a way to help widen the net of thinking and “crowd source” further discovery. No process is set in stone and must continue to evolve and mature.
Brandon
but I do not see my process far from LODO. I do a BIAB process similar to the Braumeister, so stuff does not move around too much. Malt conditioning is something I have been doing for the lagers, so no change there. I does not take much effort to boil and chill vs raising water temp to strike so I added this. I used to stir the grains after pouring them in the kettle, I tried now three batches without stirring and efficiency is the same so I can change to this. I used to do a modified batch sparge which worked fine but if I let the grains settle and start recirculating at 30 min with all the water in the kettle, efficiency does not suffer much, so I can keep this too. I did two batches with SMB and one with Brewtan B, the first two were a Saison and a Kölsch, the Brewtan B was a Helles. Only the Saison is ready, but both the Saison and the Kölsch fermented well, and the Helles seems happy (we'll see). For now, I will keep the long mashes when I need to attenuate, and will not modify the boil much (I was never a heavy boiler as my kettle in Germany was barely 30L (yep, those Glühwein kettles) and heavy boiling meant boilover, but the German data is mostly from commercial systems and as most of you know, they are a bit fancier vs our homebrew kettles. I will keep my 12-24h trub separation process vs pitching immediately after cooling, and the rest is more or less what I was doing before, ensuring no oxygen whatsoever gets in the beer; all my beers are either keg-conditioned or transferred to kegs before full attenuation (+spunding when needed).