Priming Sugar measurements

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Tiroux

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
470
Reaction score
10
Location
Thurso
So, two parts for this question...

1-Why are you guys (I mean, in the United-States/Imperial system users) measuring sugar in volume instead of measuring it in weight (since different sugar have different weight to volume ratios)?

(Don't read this as a snoby question, I'm just curious about this culture difference)

2-What is your prefered priming sugar ratio, and why?



I personally love about 6g/L, which is 0.8oz/gal.

For IPAs I like to go up to 7gL to push out the hop aromas, 0.93oz/gal.

For stouts and malt forward beers, I love to go down a little bit, sometimes as low as 5gL, wish is 0.67oz/gal. I find it gives a denser foam and really let place for the malty/caramel/roasty flavors to come through.
 
I'm pretty sure most of us do measure by weight, I'm not sure why you'd make that assumption. Maybe because beginner brewers are usually the ones posting about priming sugar, and they probably haven't bought a balance yet?

A cheap digital kitchen scale is only $20 and can be used for grains, hops, etc. as well. So most brewers have one. Measuring by volume, as you pointed out, is pretty inconsistent.

Most of us talk about carbonation in terms of volumes of CO2, not sugar levels. This is a good unit that can be easily translated to forced carbonation in a keg.

I like to use a priming calculator that takes into account the temperature (for residual CO2). I prime with table sugar, and the amount does depend on the style. I do most American styles to 2.5 or so volumes, anything Belgian at 3, weizens at 3, ciders at 3. I do like my darker beers to be a bit lower.
 
I'm pretty sure most of us do measure by weight, I'm not sure why you'd make that assumption. Maybe because beginner brewers are usually the ones posting about priming sugar, and they probably haven't bought a balance yet?

A cheap digital kitchen scale is only $20 and can be used for grains, hops, etc. as well. So most brewers have one. Measuring by volume, as you pointed out, is pretty inconsistent.

Most of us talk about carbonation in terms of volumes of CO2, not sugar levels. This is a good unit that can be easily translated to forced carbonation in a keg.

I like to use a priming calculator that takes into account the temperature (for residual CO2). I prime with table sugar, and the amount does depend on the style. I do most American styles to 2.5 or so volumes, anything Belgian at 3, weizens at 3, ciders at 3. I do like my darker beers to be a bit lower.

Yhea maybe that's because I saw so many times people say 3/4 cup for 5 gal.

If I would translating my number in vol/vol, by Beersmith, it would be:

5gL = 2.1
6gL = 2.3
7gL = 2.6
 
I'm a user of English measurements, but I do my priming sugar by weight. Using volume is asking for inconsistency.

To be honest, I now do all of my "fine" measurements in grams... thanks, ultra-precise kitchen scale. :)
 
Measuring sugar by volume is a bad idea. Especially DME.

What makes me crazy is ounces. It’s a mass. It’s a volume. It’s a unit of force.

I use 110g of sucrose in about 17L, more or less depending on style.
 
Most folks who start reading beyond the basic instructions included with most kits, that are bad in so many ways, where the measurements are in volume, soon learn why it's preferable and more accurate to measure by weight. There's thousands of threads on here discussing this.

There's a classic experiment that Alton Brown did on his show where he took a half cup of unsifted and sifted flour and weighed them both and showed there was a substantial difference in weight between the two.

You can do this your self with a measuring cup of brown sugar. Fill a half cup with brown sugar. Now press the sugar down in the cup. How much is there? Half? Now go and get some more brown sugar and cram all that into the cup. So now you have a half cup of sugar that has twice as much sugar in it as before you compressed it.

How do you think that will alter carbonation?

As to the amount you want to use, it depends on whether you're carbing to style or not. The rule of thumb for priming most beers (not talking about carbing to style) to 2-2.5 volumes of co2, is 1 ounce (28 grams) of corn sugar/gallon of beer.

Many Styles are carbed higher than the standard 4.5- 5 ounces of sugar/2.-2.5 volumes of co2 that comes with basic kits, and often that is more sugar than that. Think of belgian beers for instance, or some pilsners, or Autralian sparkling ales. They are all carbed higher than most basic beers, and except for beligians are often bottled in normal bottles and they don't gush or explode.

You can just look at beersmith and see the different amounts of sugar needed to carb by style.

For example the style volume of co2 range for an Australian Ale is 2-2.8 volumes of Co2, and if the beer is @ 70 degrees at bottling time, then you would need, 6.12 ounces of sugar if you wanted to carb at the highest volume for that style.

That 4.5 - 5 ounces really just tends to be the baseline for most gravity/ styles of beer, (when bottled at 70 degrees) but there are plenty of styles that use less or more sugar to be less or more carbed than that.

Here's the volumes of co2 for most beer styles...you can see how high Belgians and German weizens can be carbed.


Style & Volumes of CO2
American ales 2.2–3.0
British ales 1.5–2.2
German weizens 2.8–5.1
Belgian ales 2.0–4.5
European Lagers 2.4–2.6
American Lagers 2.5–2.8

But for most people starting out, the amount is usually 1oz/ gallon of beer to achieve 2-2.5 volumes of co2.
 
So, two parts for this question...

1-Why are you guys (I mean, in the United-States/Imperial system users) measuring sugar in volume instead of measuring it in weight (since different sugar have different weight to volume ratios)?

(Don't read this as a snoby question, I'm just curious about this culture difference)

2-What is your prefered priming sugar ratio, and why?
.

Answer to Item 1... Who told you that? Probably the same person that told you using the metric system was a good idea...

Answer to Item 2... corn suger normally but if if that is not around regular "table" suger Cane or beet. I think that the idea that any one kind of sugar matters is a thing of the past... though weight matters when moving between them.

I keg and usually toss in about 4 oz for all my beers.

Then serve, because this is more than usually need for most of the things I brew.

When the carbonation level is at a point I like I "put it on" the gas. Not scientific but works well.

Happy Brewing...

DPB
 
Well I think metric system IS a good idea.

But that's not the point.
 
So does probably 99.9% of the world. Burma, Liberia and the US are the only countries that haven't adopted it. It's so idiotic that we still use these ridiculous units that aren't used anywhere else in the world.
 
So does probably 99.9% of the world. Burma, Libya and the US are the only countries that haven't adopted it. It's so idiotic that we still use these ridiculous units that aren't used anywhere else in the world.

This.

1000g = 1 Kg

1Kg of Water = 1L = 1000ml

Enough said, but I could continue for a while...

tumblr_lyz9ecQQ851qb9qp0o1_1280.jpg
 
Actually Libya is metric. You’re thinking of Liberia, who along with Myanmar are the other countries stuck in the nineteenth century.

It’s a huge embarrassment. I blame Congress for being too timid to annoy the old people.

A meter is a big yard. A liter is a big quart. Drive your car at 100 instead of 60. The only thing that would be bothersome is for the rednecks in the barber shop to adjust to complaining about the temperature being 42.

Everything I do is metric except for the car, the oven, and the sewing machine.
 
So does probably 99.9% of the world. Burma, Liberia and the US are the only countries that haven't adopted it. It's so idiotic that we still use these ridiculous units that aren't used anywhere else in the world.


I say it does not matter.... I have lived over eas three times and been in the Military so Metric is really no big deal for me .

A unit of measure is a unit of measure and I could create one tomorrow. All I have to do is have people agree to use it.

To have a preference is OK bit to say one is idiotic is just silly.

It does not matter if our system is less "scientific" than metric... it works a gallon is a gallon and everybody who drinks milk knows it...

You have 315 million people using this system and they know it.... sure a Fascist would force you to use a new system but that’s not the way we do things here.

The majority of what is in place was built using the our system… it makes no sense to forace a quick change…. Just think… every tool would have to be tossed out… makes no sense

I have had non-scientists gat all excited about this,,, people who did not even measure things... but they had an opinion on this... They learned Metric was Scientific so it had to be better... I disagree.
 
This.

1000g = 1 Kg

1Kg of Water = 1L = 1000ml

Enough said, but I could continue for a while...

tumblr_lyz9ecQQ851qb9qp0o1_1280.jpg

Your Tiles are soooo wrong.

Most of the world is a Crappy Place... run by Dictators, Kings, Madmen, the local Communist Party and even Europe has it's "class" issies.

The people who come to the US of A came here to get away from that craziness...

And changing makes no sense since we already know our system... It would be like trying to use a new language... It will change but i see no reason to rush it...
 
Woah, calm down a bit.

Our current system of units is rather arbitrary and inconsistent compared to the metric system, as Tiroux nicely pointed out above. I don't think that's anything that's debatable. However, it is (of course) my opinion that our system is quite idiotic when compared to the metric system. Most of the world agrees with me on this, which is why almost every country uses the metric system. You can disagree, but there's no need to throw a tantrum. I am a researcher and engineer, but I don't think metric is better because it's more "scientific," rather because it's much more straightforward and consistent.

My opinion is not political and has nothing to do with fascism. Just practicality. But I appreciate the 'MURICA attitude.

TKEhF.png
 
Your Tiles are soooo wrong.

Most of the world is a Crappy Place... run by Dictators, Kings, Madmen, the local Communist Party and even Europe has it's "class" issies.

The people who come to the US of A came here to get away from that craziness...

And changing makes no sense since we already know our system... It would be like trying to use a new language... It will change but i see no reason to rush it...

Wow that really strengthened your argument. :cross:

I'm kidding. Really, we're just being practical. No need to take it personally. I love American as much as the next guy. But our system of units is dumb.
 
So does probably 99.9% of the world. Burma, Liberia and the US are the only countries that haven't adopted it. It's so idiotic that we still use these ridiculous units that aren't used anywhere else in the world.

I must confess that while I prefer metric for my science, I'm good with Imperial/English being a resident of the US. I'd also like to ask, if 99.9% of the world uses metric, what math are you using to get that?

If just the US is non metric, and the US is about 5% world pop so that and 99.9 must = 100? oops um.. land mass? no US has about 1.9& of the land mass... Well must be by number of countries, the UN has about 200 (191), so about .5%, not .1% (as noted it is 3 contries at non metric, so 1.5%, not .1%)...

I consider this a bit of irony here since in metric and the ease of base 10 and yet there is a failure to round to the nearest order of magnitued.

With that said, metric does make more sense.

While we are on crappy things that custom/habit keeps us doing - qwerty
 
I must confess that while I prefer metric for my science, I'm good with Imperial/English being a resident of the US. I'd also like to ask, if 99.9% of the world uses metric, what math are you using to get that?

If just the US is non metric, and the US is about 5% world pop so that and 99.9 must = 100? oops um.. land mass? no US has about 1.9& of the land mass... Well must be by number of countries, the UN has about 200 (191), so about .5%, not .1% (as noted it is 3 contries at non metric, so 1.5%, not .1%)...

I consider this a bit of irony here since in metric and the ease of base 10 and yet there is a failure to round to the nearest order of magnitued.

With that said, metric does make more sense.

While we are on crappy things that custom/habit keeps us doing - qwerty

Hey I said "probably." That was obviously me exaggerating instead of actually looking at population data and calculating a percentage. But I did say "99.9% of the world probably thinks metric is a good idea," not "99.9% of the world uses metric." So there is some wiggle room there :p

I agree in that it doesn't bother me much on a day to day basis. But as an engineer, most things that aren't practical bother me when I stop to think about them.
 
Wow that really strengthened your argument. :cross:

I'm kidding. Really, we're just being practical. No need to take it personally. I love American as much as the next guy. But our system of units is dumb.


Well I just sort-a go by the old thing my Mom used to say...

"If everybody else jumped off the bridge would you"

I of course would say no and she knew I was lying.... since I probably jumped off first...

Then again my family "escaped" Europe 350 years ago... then they pulled us back twice WW1 and WW2 because they were still run by a bunch of crazies and egotists...

Cool Interactive map:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/travel-warnings/
 
I agree in that it doesn't bother me much on a day to day basis. But as an engineer, most things that aren't practical bother me when I stop to think about them.

Yeah I get that. I can still remember the explaination for cgs in Astronmy instead of mks. Some constant comes out to be 1 when using metric cgs and another number to memeorize in mks. And at when you are talking 10 to the 30th or 10 to the 33rd power, the number is just so huge does it matter if it is grams or kilograms?

And again, as I said, custom still has us using QWERTY which is much less efficent than other layouts. But converting about 150million+ US typers to a different layout? BAH!
 
DPBISME, you really made me laugh.

Anyways... Sorry about that, It was meant to be a thread on primming sugar.

That said, it's not because it's ''scientific'' that's it's useful (even though if it makes sens that it's base on physics, because, well, measurements are physics).

It's mainly because it makes sens and is constant.

1000mg in 1g, 1000g in a 1kg
1000ml in 1L
1L of water = 1Kg

16oz in a lb...
4quarts in a gallon
1q of water = 2.0863512321... lb
1g of water = 8.345400519... lb

Don't tell me it's useful and pratical.

Yhea, I get you KNOW what a gallon is, what a pound weight...

But a cup of water is 0.52158725686 lb or 8.3453961097599oz (weight ounces, not fuild ounces...)
While 1L is 1Kg, 250ml is 250g or 0.25Kg
 
It’s sad that after 150 years of not phasing out the obsolete US Customary system, the slight progress we have made is stalled.

I asked the neighbor boy (he’s 16) if he learned the metric system in school. Blank stare, he doesn’t know a kilometer from a kilogram.

Customary units waste time and cause errors. It puts us at a disadvantage in international trade. It costs us money.
 
Man I love forums. You come for some tips on priming sugar and find a debate over measurement systems. BTW, using 180 units of measurement for temperature allows for a more precise measurement of temp versus 100 units. My two cents.
 
Man I love forums. You come for some tips on priming sugar and find a debate over measurement systems. BTW, using 180 units of measurement for temperature allows for a more precise measurement of temp versus 100 units. My two cents.


My thermometer have two digits. My 0.02 dollars.
 
And meanwhile back to the OP's questions - :p

So KOTC and I are having this discussion - is there a reason to use corn sugar over cane sugar, and why? Is it just "tradition" or is there an actual benefit to the corn sugar? 'Cuz it surely is more expensive! We're debating whether we want to try using cane sugar in our next bottling! Discussion appreciated!
 
And meanwhile back to the OP's questions - :p

So KOTC and I are having this discussion - is there a reason to use corn sugar over cane sugar, and why? Is it just "tradition" or is there an actual benefit to the corn sugar? 'Cuz it surely is more expensive! We're debating whether we want to try using cane sugar in our next bottling! Discussion appreciated!

I've used both and can't tell any difference. Now I use cane sugar because it's cheaper, and it's always available. I've used cane sugar in the kettle, too. It seems to work real well.
 
I've used both and can't tell any difference. Now I use cane sugar because it's cheaper, and it's always available. I've used cane sugar in the kettle, too. It seems to work real well.

I agree. Technically dextrose (corn sugar) is easier for the yeast to eat since it's a monosaccharide, with sucrose (table sugar) the yeast first have to hack it apart (invert it) before they eat it. In practice this doesn't change anything unless the yeast are very stressed out. Especially considering if you boil the sugar solution you're inverting it (at least partially). Just make sure you measure by weight and use less sucrose by weight than you would dextrose.
 
Back
Top