It’s actively fermenting beer so you’ll get whatever is in suspension.
Could work. For me it’s all about as little Oxygen as possible. One of the reasons this is so exciting is to try and brew Trappist style beers with Low Oxygen.
Bryan has said before that ALL beers benefit from Low Oxygen brewing.
The bottle represents probably the most effective packaging vessel in terms of Low Oxygen. Obviously people keg because of the volumes and the ease of serving but kegs have multiple possible points of ingress compared to the bottle cap.
This isn’t hard and fast stuff but for me it’s the only way. I brew 1.25 gallon batches so kegging is not my thing. Bottle spunding is the way, I just need to experiment with it.
I agree to a point, but some beers do benefit from slight oxidation. Just think about a nice old cork-finished bottle of Chimay Blue. I personally find a little oxidation helps British styles smooth out a bit. Definitely isn’t appropriate for American styles.
Part of my hope for the low oxygen methods is getting things precise enough allow a controlled, limited oxidation.
But I’m still a long way from any of this. Due to the limitations of my brewing space and equipment, I have to pour from wort from a “grant” to the kettle during mash out. I have plans to fix this, however.
I agree for the purpose of aging and maturation the big bottles are nice. I drink a lot of 33cl Chimay bottles as well.
I’m going to be trying some different stuff on these styles. The bottle spunding is going to be just part of the equation. Low Oxygen caramalt and blended base malt flavors are another. No syrups as well.
How are you currently packaging your low O2 beers?
I have not brewed in a while but it would have been a standard sugar dose or yeast/sugar dose prior to that.
Reviving an oldie:
So I see three paths here with varying results (O2 ingress and freshness preservation:
1.) Straight up bottle spunding. This method works like gangbusters but leaves a fair amount of sediment in the bottles once the yeast are done fermenting and drop out.
2.) A hybrid approach where you let the beer get down closer to terminal gravity and rack it onto sugar in a bottling bucket. You calculate what volume of CO2 the sound will give you and supplement with sugar to make up the difference. This has the advantage of actively fermenting yeast but you have to transfer into a bottling. I let with a sugar solution.
3.) The standard “refermentarion” option. Ferment to terminal gravity and mix priming solution with fresh yeast and rack onto it then bottle. Here you have to be careful O2 wise. You want to make sure the yeast is active when you rack.
In option 2 & 3 you suggest racking to a bottling bucket, an unnecessary step that invites O2 ingress. Put sugar solution or sugar + yeast solution directly in your bottles and bottle straight from the primary.
I didn’t read the whole thread (apologies) but I think that the centrifuge is key in this application. Bottling without any fining is going to leave a lot of yeast, and other things (ppolyphenols?) in the bottle. Spunding will only increase the amount of sediment.
With time in the fridge, this isn’t a problem, but I don’t know that you’re gaining much benefit over typical priming that already scavenges oxygen for transfer.
I acknowledge that in the post. Active yeast is present in #2 and #3, and while that’s less ideal than #1 it’s miles ahead of just racking into a bottling bucket with no active yeast.
I prefer #1 but I am experimenting with different methods to cut down on sediment in the bottle.
Traditional priming is typically done with the last stragglers in solution and I doubt they are up to task of scavenging Oxygen for my Low Oxygen beers. The major advantage of bottling with extract is active yeast in suspension and a zero Oxygen in solution.
The major goal is to cut down on the sediment. Careful pours get the jobs done but I’d really like to decrease the sediment I’m seeing. Here is a shot of the last beer I brewed:
What kind of fermentor do you use?
I use a 2 gallon bucket. When I said pours I was referring to the bottles.
I’m suggesting that, if you are experimenting with different methods, try getting rid of the bottling bucket altogether.
https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=23215.msg296546#msg296546
Understood. With my small batches I don’t think it’s a time issue. I’m going to experiment and if I see O2 degradation ill be pursuing something in the form of what you suggest.
Doesn’t this defy the point of LODO?
?
He doesn’t pour it into the bottles. By pours, he means pouring from the bottle into the glass.
I would not personally try bottle spunding due to the risk of exploding bottles, but Derrick seems to have it down pretty good. Agree or don’t with the methods, he’s technically proficient.
The main thing is to have the tracking of gravity in a vise grip. Make sure your refractometer/hydrometer is calibrated and that you perform a FFT so you aren’t flying blind.
It also helps to aim a little lower on desired Vol. CO2. I have about 3 cases worth of Chimay, Westmalle and Rochefort empties so I know I can comfortably go up to, and exceed conservatively, 3 Vol. I carbed this beer to ~2.7 Vol. CO2 and I think, contrary so opinions on carbonation in these Trappist style beers, it actually served to smooth out the beer in a very pleasant way.
And yes, to clarify, I meant with careful pouring, even the 1/2" or so if sediment in the bottles stays put. I’d like to half that amount of sediment if I can.
Philbrew’s point about O2 ingress from transfer is noted, as I have been thinking about that as well. If after experimenting I don’t see a dramatic downturn in flavor, I’ll know the active yeast in method #2 and #3 are doing their jobs.
I understood; I was thinking that with a different fermentor you might be able to leave more sediment behind. Of course, that wouldn’t help with active yeast or other particulate still in suspension.
I meant fermenting in buckets which are oxygen permeable.