nbspindel said:
Quickly mentioned is the atmospheric pressure, which lamarguy appropriately addressed. but the first thing they said is that none of them have fermented under pressure in a corny (and let's assume also not with a sankey). It sounds like conjecture, although based on some knowledge. Doesn't seem like any research was done in this instance; more like it was just an impromtu part of the discussion.
Let us continue to bravely go where no (home)brewer has gone before. (Yeah, I know that's a bit presumptuous.)
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. They hear about it, it isn't what they do, they talk it down or say they wouldn't do it. Why don't they take up the experimental side and try it, so they can appropiately down it with science and knowledge instead of conjecture and ignorance (from not having done it or read about it I mean, Jamil is deffinitely not ignorant). I like those guys, but man they could use some HBT reading before their broadcasts for a heads-up
.
I agree with you too, procede bravely gentle-brewers into the land of the keg fermentation!!!
Saccharomyces said:
Right, I consider the hydrostatic pressure for commercial brewer to be an advantage, because he can ferment 4-5*F warmer than we can, with the same level of esters. For instance I have read Avery ferments at 74*F, and their house strain is similar to London Ale. I get more esters at 66*F using that yeast than I get from their beers.
Exactly! I started this technique write-up for ales to get me into lagers easier (still haven't accomplished a lager on my home system yet
), and didn't worry about the higher temperature ferments or lower byproducts. I was just interested in faster beer (carbonation maturation period running consecutively with secondary maturation period without changing a vessel or exposure to oxygen), and figured if it worked great on my ales then lagers (which is the main reason I attempted this) would be even better with the system. It works, and the yeast love the pressure not hate it!
Saccharomyces said:
I also think the closed system has a huge advantage in that the beer never touches oxygen, and oxygen damage is one of the biggest threats to homebrew. Commercial systems are kept closed end-end for this reason.
I agree completely, and this was what started my research to see if pressure hurt yeast. Then I found (what lamarguy posted and found and I couldn't find to put in this thread... like the ******* I am) and read it, convincing me I could take the step confidently. I was going to make it a closed system without pressure at first, then tap it to tranfer (remaining atmosphere free with a one-way spunding valve). Having no atmosphere from the time I pitch to pour is a huge monkey off my back. No more worries about contamination, and if there is... I know where it came from easier.
Saccharomyces said:
Now that I have moved up to 10 gallon standard batch size, I am seriously considering ditching my buckets and carboys in favor of fermenting 100% in kegs. I don't have Sankes yet, but I can do high gravity 8 gallon batches split across two corny kegs in the interim, and just dedicate two kegs with 3/4" cut off the dip tubes as fermenters.
Go for it! Move on up like the Jefferson's. You will love the "party keg" 1/2 BBL kegs, and your yeast will make them a true PARTY KEG!!! I think with your recommended enzyme usage in your experiment, fermcap during fermentation, and proper temperature control per style... we have a winner winner chicken dinner.
lamarguy said:
Yup, pressurized fermentation is certainly another "tool" in the homebrewers toolbox. It allows us to simulate what the big boys do without a large investment in equipment.
Yep, and some of what you stated as dissadvantage can be corrected with a higher temperature fermentation, long enough rest period, and yeast strain. Yeast biomass can greatly increase with a little higher temperature. More diacetyl can be created faster with this technique, yet (per kaisers provided graph) it gets cleaned up just as fast at the end of fermentation. As for acetaldehyde, I believe that to be more of a yeast thing too. Maybe I need to read more (again
), but I think a lot of variables plus the strain chosen would make this a "problem." I honestly don't know though, so experimental knowledge is anxiously awaited from all of us. All in all, I am so happy this has taken off and feel so proud to be a part of it. Pat ourselves on the backs boys, we make brewing easier... just with more expensive equipment!!! Ahhh the paradox.