Perhaps they are, but you did not state “to each their own” you were condescending and insulting. Your techniques might be the next amazing breakthrough, or it may not, but regardless you really need to work on your delivery sometimes.
OFF TOPIC: Quite a few brewers, here and elsewhere, are seeing great results by incorporating aspects of the Low Oxygen process. As of recently, positive results are coming from active members on this forum.
We put the website together to revamp the image of the process. We have offered up the spreadsheet for free, a wealth of academic and technical information for free, and worked to craft a process document that offered the incremental approach that people were interested in. We don’t benefit from doing so in any other way other than to help out.
As far as EMPIRICAL evidence is concerned, I can’t find one shred of the Low Oxygen process that wasnt developed using the empirical method and seeing that many people are experiencing the same results (all results that seem to coincide with all the literature written on the subject) I struggle to find error in such a good body of information.
If you are looking for blind testing to give you the go ahead on whether to pull the trigger on Low Oxygen or not, i’d say skip it and do a mini-mash. Let your taste buds decide for you.
In the end, all the information is on the table and people are now deciding to give it a try. They are liking the results.
BACK ON TOPIC: I was working on aspects of the spreadsheet when Bryan was testing batch after batch of S-189 yeast. It had major flavor and performance drawbacks IN HIS brewery. Take that for what it’s worth. Flocculation was poor and the flavor was lacking.
And when the competition medals come rolling in for you guys, I will eat humble pie and bow to the shrine of lodo. Right now, it feels alike like you are selling wolf tickets, I hope I’m wrong, and even if you aren’t, implying that anyone that doesn’t follow your principles as gospels are casual hobbyists and not serious passionate homebrewers is ridiculous.
My apology. My remark was uncalled for and I have removed it.
I think you’ve nailed one of my main points.
As someone who historically battled with Bryan here on this forum (when you all knew me as RPIScotty), I have to say I think everyone is overreacting.
Despite what you all think, it’s all in the spirit of moving things forward. All the info is there for you to ponder over. If there isnt anything wrong with what your doing, i.e. you like your beer, then don’t change it.
If you feel that you can benefit from any of the incremental improvements, then by all means, charge forward.
To clarify, they are not MY principals, they are the principals of professional German brewers, and they are taught to those who hope to achieve the same level, at the world renowned brewing universities. I am simply reading and trying to understand and implement them on the homebrewing level. I know the common dogma is that what professional breweries do doesn’t pertain to us, but science is science and scale doesn’t matter. Its pretty black and white here.
Back to 34/70 I’ve had great results with the stuff and don’t consider it excessively dusty at all. I use gelatin on my beers though.
Science is science, but my experience has shown me that scale can matter. Not always, but certainly sometimes.
Actually, 34/70 is the 70th isolate of station 34. There is a product on Hefebank Weihenstephan’s page that is 34/78, which is less flocculant, but has many of the same attributes.
The Chico strains are all a little different, as they are different isolates. Sierra Nevada says what they are using today is a little different. The Chico strain came from Seidel as BRY-96, the Ballantine Beer strain.
Yeah, I miss Mark’s wisdom too.
You may be right, but your delivery is crumby sometimes. And many other, equally great, equally amazing breweries with amazing brewers do t use those German principles.
Listen dude, I’m sure I’m not going to be the one to change your mind, and you probably aren’t going to be the one the change mine. Have a good one man.
I wanna say that I couldn’t be a bigger believer in people brewing how they want to brew. Everyone has different equipment, time to dedicate (kids have put a definite dent in mine for 2 years now), processes, etc. And different goals for their hobby which is perfectly fine - I’m a prime example. When I started in '93, I just wanted to make good beer to share with my friends on the weekend, and for the most part it was pretty good. But when I went all grain, I had some spectacular failures (pH related in hindsight, some sanitation failures) and I got serious. I don’t doubt that brewers here are serious as well.
But as was posted by someone, I feel that low O2 brewing has many similarities to Mark’s many yeast postings. New info was presented that flew in the face of what most of us felt was conventional homebrewing wisdom. I was a critic of Mark’s approach, then finally broke down and tried his method and use it now for ales (though I still don’t want to pitch 1/2 gallon of spent wort into a lager). As for the low O2 stuff, I was a vocal critic of the refusal to share info. But thankfully the info has been shared and I doubt that the source materials of the info would be seen as snake oil. What I can totally see is questioning whether most homebrewers can implement these techniques at home, or whether it improves our beer. I’ve tried it and believe it noticeably improved a beer I’ve brewed many times, but there’s more experimentation to be done. But that’s why we’re here- to take in new info and decide if it works for us, then experiment. Example - I remember trying hop stands back when many brewers scoffed at the idea, and it’s pretty much SOP for many brewers doing APAs and AIPAs now.
I’d be proud to drink anyone’s beer here and don’t care how they brewed it, because we all know that there are many ways to make good beer. Just don’t dismiss potentially good info because you don’t like the delivery or you could miss out, like with the yeast info. $0.02 (possibly less). 
Back on topic- all of the yeast brands available to us Homebrewers- even if the same isolate- are likely sourced from different places so can have different characteristics. The dry version from Fermentis is likely from the Siebel Institute yeast bank while Wyeast and White Labs likely sourced theirs from breweries.
EDIT: the “W” is for Weinstephan (duh) but still, I’d guess the different companies sourced the strain from several different breweries likely accounting for the differences. I doubt it has anything to do with the quality of dry yeast.
BSI used to have WL 820 listed as 34/70 and WL 830 as W
206.
Apparently they now have 830 as 34/70:
http://www.brewingscience.com/PDF/prodlist/BSI_Yeast_Descriptions_Guide.pdf
Last month I split 10G of german pilsner wort between 34/70 and S189. I conducted a total of 7 blind triangle tests, 3 of those correctly identified the odd one out. The differences I noted were slightly more malt character in the S189 and the aroma of the 34/70 was slightly more ‘lagerish’ - terrible descriptor, I know… Other correct tasters also commented on the aroma being different.
I also noted that the 34/70 dropped clear slightly sooner than the S189.
Good data. Thanks for sharing. Which did you prefer for your pilsner?
Did you record the qualitative descriptions from the participants too? I’d like to see what those who didn’t know what the experiment was about had to say about flavor and aroma. Would be interesting for the forum to read.
I was one of the 3 correct tasters (so not technically ‘blind’ as I was aware of the variable). It wasn’t massively late hopped but I thought there was a bit more hop character (mainly aroma) in the 34/70. The other two correct tasters didn’t pick much on flavour, but both thought the aroma was different. They thought the 34/70 smelled more like a typical lager (? sulphur) - I guess its the most widely used lager yeast so maybe its more familiar to their palettes.
I found the 34/70 slightly more crisp and perhaps better suited to the pilsner style. So in that regard I guess I preferred it, but the general consensus was that if you were served a pint of one and then served your next pint from the other tap, it’s unlikely you’d notice the switch.
Also, I harvested the slurry of the S189 for a dunkel and its my best dunkel yet. (no science here…)
Thank you. This is VERY helpful. Cheers!
I know that I’m a bit late to the conversation, but I wanted to chime in on a few things.
I use 34/70 quite a bit. I have fermented it using traditional lager fermentation schedules, accelerated lager schedules, and ale-like fermentations at temps anywhere from the mid 50’s to the mid 60’s. I have never gotten a lemon flavor from it. As a matter of fact, I find that 34/70 mutes lemon character from hops like Sterling, Motueka, Kazbek, etc. - varieties that give distinct citrus character with other yeasts.
I can’t refute that LODO could have something to do with it, as I have yet to incorporate that in the hot side. One other thing that comes to mind is that if the LODO brewers that get this character are using saurgut, maybe the yeast is somehow enhancing the lemony, Berliner Weisse character from the acid fermentation rather than producing this during fermentation.
I have also noticed the lack of sulfur production from dry lager strains. While I don’t want my beer to smell like eggs, there are certain beers where I prefer just a whiff of sulfur on the nose. I have used 34/70 on several occasions in my Märzen, and it makes a damn good beer, but when I use 2633 it leaves a subtle sulfur note on the nose that takes it to the next level.
Regarding S-189, I have only used it once, using an accelerated lager fermentation schedule, and I wasn’t a fan of the results. It was kind of muddled, with some fusel alcohol notes. If I used it again, I’d be sure to stick to a traditional low & slow lager fermentation.
And yes, 34/70 finishes crisp enough for a pilsner, but WY2278 is even crisper. 2278 is the only yeast I’ll use for a hoppy lager like an IPL. Every other lager strain I’ve used tends to strip some late hop character (especially fruitier varietals), even 34/70.