Just wondering why Belgian brewers don’t care about HSA. Could the yield of low oxygen brewing techniques be higher or lower depending on the types of beer? Here are some possibilities:
What is the exact definition of yield to you?
Which Belgian Brewers are you talking about? Regional ones? Some microbreweries in the states don’t care about oxidation either.
Some of the Trappists are displaying some of the fresh grain flavors that the Low Oxygen methods are striving for so it’s a questions of who doesn’t care?
The ratio between the investment in terms of hardware, ingredients, time and energy versus the immediate flavor improvement.
For instance the Struise Brouwers. I’ve seen waterfalls of hot wort.
Or you have Anchor Brewing (not exactly a small brewery) here in the US…“The fermentation of Anchor Steam® Beer takes place in our shallow, very wide, open fermenting pans, cooled entirely by filtered San Francisco air moving through the fermentation room. These fermenters are an important part of our unique brewing history and represent a marked difference from the vertical tanks found in other breweries in America. Except for the occasional hot day, we still simply use the naturally cool air from San Francisco’s foggy coastal climate.”
It’s so tough to say. So many larger breweries just have this stuff as their SOP. that’s just the way they make beer.
Other smaller regional breweries would have to wrestle with the cost of implementation versus how much they could expect their product to improve. Many of them would likely get blowback from consumers should their flavor profile change.
My main point is those rules, not so much the definition of yield.
I’m still not sure what you are asking. Are you talking cost of implementation of a Low Oxygen brewing system to benefit of the beers on that system?
No let’s say motivation for the homebrewer. If he brews a RIS he may not " need " the lodo techniques as much.
I think with recipe tweaks and the like that every beer can benefit. I’m going to be doing a Belgian run soon and a RIS Lager at some point this winter. In the overall sense, even if you don’t count the fresh grain flavors for pale beers which the methods brings, you will still have a very stable beer though to packaging and that a positive for any beer.
So you deny the validity of my " rules" .
I’d say there is a fair bit more latitude then the “rules” imply.
So the more I thought about your guidelines above the more I thought that answering back with one sentence was short sighted.
In fact, your 4 points above give a very solid springboard from which to discuss a few misconceptions.
Here is what I mean:
1.) There seems to be an assumption here by some, not all and definitely not you directly, that using many of the Continental and Domestic Macro brewing methods (of which the Low Oxygen homebrewing subset is derived) is somehow relegated only to light lagers. In truth, it’s really a malt thing and not a style thing. For instance, yes there is a definite reason to do it with light lagers that are really base malt driven and have delicate profiles to which the Low Oxygen methods enhance greatly. Yet how many people are using different pale Malts in things like RIS? I’ve seen many recipes contain Maris otter, pale ale malt, Pilsner, Vienna, Munich, etc. the point here is, Low Oxygen enhances the flavors of all these base Malts and if people notice enough of a difference using Munich malt or Maris Otter in something like a stout using regular methods, then Low Oxygen is only going to enhance that. Also, it will enhance and reimagine cara malt and roast malt flavors as well. So:
ANSWER: all color beers benefit in some way.
2.) This one is true to an extent for any beer brewed with any method. You start creeping into alcohol heat territory and it doesn’t matter what methods you are using.
ANSWER: I’ll give you this one if you are brewing monster beers and nothing else.
3.) I’ll give you this one. The hop character is going to be enhanced in the absence of oxygen.
ANSWER: [emoji1303]
4.) A bit of anecdotal evidence to the contrary: the other night I was speaking with someone who’s tastebuds I trust who was drinking a Chimay Cinq Cents after not having one for some time. He was picking up the fresh grain characteristics that are a hallmark of the Low Oxygen methods. Now I’m not saying that Chimay is Low Oxygen, nor am I saying that Chimay is one of the more phenolic monastic Brewers, but hey…
ANSWER: It remains to be seen. I plan on a full Belgian run (Table, Dubbel, Tripel and DS), multiple runs actually, to experiment with a laundry list of variables I’ve put down on paper. Given what I’ve tasted in commercial examples, I think fermentation and carbonation can be leveraged to make Low Oxygen and Trappist yeasts very good friends.
Hope this is more expansive and friendly to discussion more than my one sentence was!
“Need”? Maybe not just imperial stout.
ALL beers will benefit in one way or another. Do they need it? That’s up to you, but that doesn’t change the fact that they will benefit.
This statement does not contradict my “rules”.
I think your “rules” assume low gravity pale lagers or ales with medium to high bitterness are prime candidates which is true. What is also true is that medium to high gravity (up to 1.090) darker beers with or without the use of more character driven Belgian strains are also candidates, it’s just that some changes to accepted ingredients, recipes, process, etc. may be in order.
At the end of the day, not even the paler beers will go on without some modification to recipes and process.