Lots of different methods

My wife was helping me with the first couple of batches I have done in a while and while asking questions she was astonished at my replies and at one point gently admonished me for not refreshing my memory better before jumping back in.

I patiently explained that there really are no hard and fast single rules and that brewing has a lot of options at every stage as long as the process ends in drinkable beer. We go for and hope for the best that we can acomplish. She was skeptical to say the least...

An example for me is that I religiously take my reading at the beginning, transfer (just started this process because wife wants a clearer beer and this is one add-on for that) and end b4 bottling. I use a 90 second rule on bubbles in between. This was from a book (Mara) I read in the beginning and his reasons made sense.

Would appreciate input on things you others feel are flexible and things that are not. I'm going to kick it up to all grain in the fall and want to get my routines down pat before. I see the process as very flexible with the exception of santation and temps.

There is only one proper way to brew: the way I'm doing it this time. The "I" and "this" just vary from person to person, brew to brew.



Rick

I'm inflexible on determining fermentation by bubbles in the airlock.

For me, I don't even think about racking until my hydrometer tells me fermentation is complete. The airlock is not a precision scientific instrument; the hydrometer is. If the ferment is complete, you can fine the beer when you rack it, which makes for an even clearer beer. And if it isn't complete, you know to leave it in the primary until it's done.

Otherwise, the only other thing about which I'm inflexible is sanitization. Even fermentation temperatures in my brewery don't go beyond "cellar temperature". This time of year, that's ~65oF; in winter, it's ~55.

Thought-provoking post!

Bob

In my opinion, there are just about NO rules that have no exceptions. Sanitizing is pretty solid, but lambics essentially depend on infection (by wild yeast). Hydrometers are considered to be critical by most but I have not used one in years and to date have never brewed a bad batch or had a bottle bomb. Be wary of anyone who tells you that every rule is rock hard.

There's one absolute rule... patients, patients and you'll have a good beer. Everything else is just a variable.

I thought the only rule was - Realx, don't worry - Have a homebrew.

It depends on how YOU want to do it.

The end result is BEER.

The quality will differ depending on the method you use. But the main factor is the quality of the ingredients and the care you take.

Poor ingredients will probably not result in good beer
Lack of care probably will not result in good beer.

You can get good beer from really good extract ingredients
You can also get good beer from mediocre All grain ingredients.

With good ingredients and care you can get great beer from either.
What you can get from all grain that you can't get for extract is a beer you made yourself the way you want it.

There's one absolute rule... patients, patients and you'll have a good beer

Click to expand...

So, then, doctors and nurses must make the best beer.



Rick (sorry, couldn't resist)

Rick_R said:

So, then, doctors and nurses must make the best beer.



Rick (sorry, couldn't resist)

Click to expand...

I thought it meant someone had to get hurt or sick making it. Sorry, I couldn't resist either.

The one thing that I noticed when I first researched brewing was that everyone does it different. And of course the way Internet forums go, everyone thinks that their way is the only right way. Once I was ready to give it a go, I bought my gear, some extract kits and brewed my first couple of batches. While waiting for those batches to ferment, I researched some more. This led me to believe that I had ten gallons of water unfit for mosquitoes to reproduce in.

As it turns out, I certainly did make some mistakes with those first few batches. But the beer turned out great.

I'm sure John Palmer is a fine brewer, but I wouldn't assume he is any better than the rest of us. I have his book and The Joy of Home Brewing. I refer to both of them as well as a few online resources. But I always go with what works for me.

I'll comment on "90 seconds between bubbles".

that's rubbish. that is not a good way to tell what your beer is doing.

airlocks bubble, or don't bubble, for a variety of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with active fermentation taking place.

examples: room temperature increases 5 degrees..thus beer temp rises, forcing CO2 out of solution, and the airlock bubbles. a large truck drives by, shaking the ground, and those vibrations knock CO2 out of solution.

counter example: the lid on your bucket fermenter doesn't seal perfectly. not a problem in terms of sanitation, but your airlock likely won't ever bubble during the next week of active, vigorous fermentation.


You know your beer is 'done' and ready to move to secondary, by using a Hydrometer. 3 separate readings on 3 separate days, where the reading doesn't change AND is at/close to the expected final gravity per the recipe...that's when you can tell fermentation has completed. sometimes you wanna wait a few more days to let the yeast cake clean up off flavors like diacetyl. some beers get no secondary, ever (hefeweizen).

in fact you can easily leave beer in primary on the cake for a month with no worries. You might have read about autolysis, and while it does happen, it takes a while to start...more than a month if you maintain proper brewing conditions.

Hi Malkore,

Well you seem to have a strong opinion on this

I'm re-reading William Mares 'Making Beer' as I am re-reading all my books accumulated over the years. He seems very knowledgeable and while folks may or may not agree I think it would be a stretch to call his methods 'rubbish'. His exact paragraph:

"Some brewing text suggest using a hydrometer to tell when the beer is ready to bottle. I don't. Every time you open your fermenter, you risk some contamination. When the bubbles in the lock come less frequently than once every ninety seconds, I know it's time to bottle. Depending on the yeast type and the ambient temperature, this might take as little as a week or as long as five weeks. Be patient."

His experience stretches a couple of decades and the book is a really nice read.

While I don't agree with your take on it, I am sure your method produces great beer as well.

I will keep a running test on this as I will be racking to secondary for a couple of days when I hit the 90 second rule. This means that if you are correct and the approach is absolute 'rubbish' it shouldn't be too many batches before I get a different reading when I bottle, right?

My first 6 batches, I just bottled at this point but the past 2 I have racked to secondary and the readings were identical two days later when I bottled. What number would you say this would have go on until you would concede it's pretty right on, or at least one way to go?

I never use a secondary for ales. There is no need for it. The ale clears up in 2 to 3 weeks and then I keg it. I always use a fining agent (whirlfloc) the last 15 minutes of the boil. I drain the entire contents of the boiler to the fermenter. The trub makes no difference in the finished beer. I always control the fermentation temperature within 2 degrees F. I am very cautious about using sanitary practices. Keep your hands sanitary at all times when you handle anything. That is where most infections come from you touched something that was not sanitary and did not notice and then handled a hose or tubing etc. Your garden hose is very infected and if you touch it and then touch something that touches the wort then all that time was wasted because the beer is now infected. Be careful.

Mesathinks,

While I am hesitant to speak for Malkore, he's not wrong. The best method to perform any action consistently is to reduce the variables that can negatively impact the action. As Malkore and I both pointed out, bubbles or lack thereof in an airlock can indicate any number of things. Number of things = variables. A hydrometer reading indicates one thing: the degree of actual fermentation. Variables? One.

Here's an example. Your airlock/stopper/pail lid is loose. You see no bubbles, so you package the beer. Had you consulted your hydrometer, you'd have seen ten more points of gravity to attenuate. You end up with bottle bombs.

Here's another, with the addition of another variable: racking. Same situation with your airlock. You see no bubbles, so you rack the beer. This action can stop fermentation, which possibly can end up the same place.

All of this can be avoided by applying some science to your brewing with a scientific instrument, instead of relying on art and judgement. I have Mares's books also. Great stuff. But I don't know why you'd adhere to that stuff for some reason when there's a simple, reliable, and above all easy way to remove the inherent uncertainty of that outmoded methodology.

Yes, it may work for you. Great! Yes, it's "one way to go". I wish you luck with it.

Cheers,

Bob

BobNQ3X said:

But I don't know why you'd adhere to that stuff for some reason when there's a simple, reliable, and above all easy way to remove the inherent uncertainty of that outmoded methodology.

Click to expand...

The point is that everything involves a trade off. As I noted above, I have not used a hydrometer in years. I am much more concerned about the risk on contamination from frequent openings than I am about the OG or FG. I've never had a bad batch or a bottle bomb. While good procedures can minimize contamination risk, you do not absolutely eliminate it no matter how careful you are when you open your fermenter.

So sure, if it makes you feel more confident, then by all means use the hydrometer. But even though it puts me in the minority (though with some pretty good company), I will say that it is not an absolute rule that you must use a hydrometer to be a successful home brewer.

My sincere thanks for keeping this discussion cordial. We see too little of this these days. I shall make every effort to maintain this thread's high standards. (And yes, I'm completely sincere when I say that!)

There are "frequent openings", and there's determining whether or not the ferment is finished. That's what I was writing about, not willy-nilly mucking about in the fermenter. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Mucking about with no clear purpose is where contamination comes from, not careful procedure in sanitizing and sample collecting.

I write of the time after one's ale has spent more than seven days in the primary. Vigorous activity has abated, but one still observes the odd bubble. You maintain that your purely empirical observation method permits you assurance your ferment is finished. I applaud you for your success. I merely maintain that in the absence of measurements taken with calibrated instruments you haven't any data upon which to base any conclusion.

Do you judge mash or sparge liquor temperature with your eye? Your finger?

Do you judge ingredient amounts by eye? By hefting them in the palm of your hand?

Then why on earth are you so convinced you can discard the third major brewing instrument? You're concerned about sanitation, and that's commendable. But to gauge fermentation you need numbers, data, not bubbles in a little plastic sculpture.

You've simply got a mass of observations without any objective data at all. Apparently that works for you in your brewery. Maybe you've even won awards with beers brewed with those procedures. Great! Again, I applaud you and your "pretty good company". I like Mares; he's an entertaining read. Though even Papazian isn't insane enough to tell you that a hydrometer isn't necessary; I think the era in which Mares began and his Mother Earth News epiphany have kept him a homebrewing Luddite, frankly.

It's still terribly outdated advice, and I shudder to think that new brewers are being accosted with it. If so, they are ill-served. There are three basic instruments in brewing that have been in use since the middle of the 18th century A.D.: The thermometer, the scale and the hydrometer. I encourage any brewer who wishes to join the rest of us in the 21st century to investigate their usefulness.

It is an absolute rule that use of scientific instruments is essential to being a consistently successful brewer. Anything else is a crapshoot. It's not about making me more "confident"; I'm perfectly confident in my brewing skills, thanks. It's about my lack of imagination: I can't imagine why on earth anyone would refuse to use an instrument so seminal to consistent brewing practice. Perhaps you might explain, in simple terms, why someone should choose your method instead of mine.

I think some on this forum like to pull our chain to see if someone will go for it. Using a hydrometer should be the only way to know what you have in your fermenter but some like to see if they can find other ways. Some try to tell others that counting bubbles works and if you read enough about brewing then you will not fall for it. To argue on this forum is pointless if the questionable information is not valid and everyone knows it.

Wow the Lids on my two fermenters, have never bubbled, I was worried at first not anymore. Now I just wonder why I still fill these airlocks w/sanitizer. But that's just me.
+1 on the hydrometer

Yeah it is very refreshing to see a debate on-line being carried on in a friendly fashion in regards to something that all of you folks feel so strongly about. It happens so rarely it seems.

I certainly wasn't trying to provoke. I'm such a novice that I can hardly debate any issues with you guys. I read Mares years a go and it seemed reasonable not to be going into my carboy every day to get a reading that could easily be determined by a simple observation. Using a glass carboy the loose lid would never be a problem. The other examples (trucks driving by etc) would cause waiting longer not bottling too soon, but I do see the merit in the argument to be consistent and exact.

I also would like to point out that I DO use my hydrometer. My first six batches were all at or very very near FG when bottled (just checked my notes to make sure) and now since I'm racking to a secondary after the 90 seconds, I'm getting two readings to compare several days a part b4 bottling. I do this before bottling and if I got a different reading or was not at or near expected FG I assume I could react just as fast as if I had been taking readings every day. Would there be a problem just leaving my batch in the seconday and take corective action or start taking readings and wait until they are the same? Seems like it would be the best of both approaches...

Since I am such a novice I really have not formed a strong opinion on this and take both Bob and Steve to be knowledgeable and see the merit and both their positions as well as Mares. I just mentioned in my original post that this was an area that was flexible (as different people do it different ways, check) and that temps and sanitation was not.

WBC is of course incorrect in that there are clearly experienced and talented brewers who disagree with him/her and simply saying they are all wrong would be to say this issue is not debatable. It clearly is. It is just like many things in life, folks on both sides of the issue feel strongly the other side is wrong I code for a living and in my world there are a often many ways to get to the same perfect ending and that may make me more receptive to having several perfectly fine approaches on almost anything.

I don't know about others reading this, but I certainly appreciate everyone taking the time to post on this thread. This is making me really think through my entire process and make sure I have a solid approach to making the best beer I can.

Thanks!

Just relized Bob said the secondary rack might stop fermentation which would result in the second reading being the same. I guess there is no middle ground, sigh.

It would however not be at FG so you would know something was wrong...

I have a lot of respect for some of the "unscientific" ways of doing things, and treat some of the "scientific" recommendations with some skepticism.

Consider the statement that an hydrometer is a precision scientific instrument. I have two. One cheap one, and one more expensive finishing hydrometer. With the cheap one, the graduations are so close together that the only way I can read it accurately with my eyesight is to take a macro photograph, and to enlarge the image on the computer. The expensive one reads .003 high, but I can read it without a camera.

I would modify that statement to "a calibrated hydrometer is a precision scientific instrument within the ranges that it can be used."

As for bubble counting, I use it all the time. If the fermenter hasn't been moved, and the temperature is constant, and it's bubbling, and a hurricane isn't about to hit, then there is no point in taking a gravity reading as the gravity is still changing. Even if the gravity is not changing, no harm will come from leaving the beer for another day or two.
In well over 30 years of brewing, I've never had a situation where common sense has contradicted an hydrometer reading, and for my house ales, I no longer bother with the hydrometer before kegging or bottling. However, I may postpone kegging or bottling for a few weeks. This works for me, but it may not work for everyone.

The hydrometer is not the only way to determine when fermentation is completed. It is a simple and accurate way (providing the gravity is within the range of the hydrometer).

Anything relying on batteries cannot be trusted when the batteries start to fail.

-a.

Rule 1, sanitization.
Rule 2, See rule one.
Rule 3, Never forget rule one.
Even when doing bitters, you want your controlled infection to go to town, Not the bad boys from your spit or floating around your bathroom, or even kitchen.
As long as rule one is in place, you will make beer, break it and it may have alcohol in it, but is it drinkable? Only after a lot of shots of something very strong. Everything else is what some people call "style" or "flare". I just call it their process.

mesathinks said:

Yeah it is very refreshing to see a debate on-line being carried on in a friendly fashion in regards to something that all of you folks feel so strongly about. It happens so rarely it seems.

I certainly wasn't trying to provoke. I'm such a novice that I can hardly debate any issues with you guys.

WBC is of course incorrect in that there are clearly experienced and talented brewers who disagree with him/her and simply saying they are all wrong would be to say this issue is not debatable. It clearly is. It is just like many things in life, folks on both sides of the issue feel strongly the other side is wrong I code for a living and in my world there are a often many ways to get to the same perfect ending and that may make me more receptive to having several perfectly fine approaches on almost anything.

I don't know about others reading this, but I certainly appreciate everyone taking the time to post on this thread. This is making me really think through my entire process and make sure I have a solid approach to making the best beer I can.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

I see you like to debate just to inflame and mislead. You say you are such a novice and then say not to disagree with your suggestions and then say I am incorrect for saying anything contrary. I have been brewing 36 years and a lot of the time do not use a hydrometer because through experience I know when a fermentation has gone well and I know when the beer is finished. I don't tell people to count bubbles or to not use a hydrometer because I want to teach the proper way to have success in brewing. If experienced brewers do not use a hydrometer it is because they have brewed so many times that they know what will happen and when. You should be glad there are people who take their own time to help others in a forum and just learn from the experienced and not try to insult or mislead. I tried to be nice at first but you pushed my button and this is the result.

mesathinks said:

Just relized Bob said the secondary rack might stop fermentation which would result in the second reading being the same. I guess there is no middle ground, sigh.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid there really isn't. Fermentation can end prematurely, and if the brewer goes ahead with the conditioning process all manner of unforeseen consequences are put in motion.

That's why I recommend that brewers check the gravity of their beer before moving it from the primary. And here's something I'll admit that'll stun you bubble-watchers rigid:

If the ferment looks complete, it probably is complete.

I know; shocker. BUT (you knew it was coming) what's the harm in using your hydrometer to make sure? Refusal to perform this simple step, whether the refusal based on 736 years of experience or belief in a beer author, is sheer bloody-mindedness.

It would however not be at FG so you would know something was wrong...

Click to expand...

That depends on the source of the FG. The only FG that matters is the one your hydrometer tells you! For a wide variety of reasons, your beer might not agree with the piece of paper your recipe is on. Your yeast might have pooped out. You might have a high proportion of dextrins in your wort. You might have...yadda yadda yadda.

Your recipe gives you a clue what the FG might be, but isn't chiseled in stone. For example, there's a thread somewhere else (on another board) talking about how his brown ale ended at 1.008 instead of the projected 1.012. Other threads here and elsewhere talk about the beer ending at, for example, 1.016 instead of 1.012.

All I'm trying to say is, once fermentation begins that paper no longer matters. You must listen to your yeast, not to your paper. The yeast talk to you in a couple of different ways, all of which are visual. First, you've got the visible krauesen. Once that drops, you have a clue that fermentation is just about complete. Second, the airlock in a verifiably sealed container. If that's bubbling, the beer is devolving carbon dioxide. That's a clue that something is still going on. Third, a hydrometer floating in a sample. We've already discussed how three like readings three days in a row means your ferment is finished.

The only signal described above that cannot be argued with is the last. The hydrometer doesn't lie, even if the brewer screws up reading it. Granted, there are hydrometers and hydrometers; I have a set of three, in degrees Plato, in overlapping scales. They're very accurate, with built-in thermometers that indicate the necessary correction. They beat the snot out of the cheap jobs you get in your "Noob Kit" brewery-in-a-box. But the cheap job works just fine if you suss how to use it!

Cheers,

Bob

It's a good thing this is a "cordial" discussion - otherwise I might feel as though I was being accused of pulling peoples' chains to provoke pointless arguments, that my brewing success is based on sheer chance (well, a crapshoot anyway), that I have a lack of imagination, and that I am "bloody-minded" (whatever that is).

I guess I have nothing more to add - I can only tolerate so much of this kind of cordiality.

While I still see the merit of the folks who prefer not to use the hydrometer, I'm going to start getting two in a row, close to or at FG before I rack to secondary. It sounds as if those of you that have forgone the readings are extremely experienced and feel the risk for you outweigh the benefits.

Kauai mentioned spit. I tried to get away from using my mouth to avoid starting the siphon and bought a small tube in large tube pump. It was prob me but I although I could get it going in spurts it was a bust and the weekend batch was back to using my mouth to start the siphon.

What do you guys do?

mesathinks said:

Kauai mentioned spit. I tried to get away from using my mouth to avoid starting the siphon and bought a small tube in large tube pump. It was prob me but I although I could get it going in spurts it was a bust and the weekend batch was back to using my mouth to start the siphon.

What do you guys do?

Click to expand...

I use an autosiphon...

i used to use an autosiphon. i switched back to the old fashioned way. just take a shot of some good scotch to sanitize your mouth first

Damn, what a nice, cordial discussion about hydrometers. Use one if you want, but don't dismiss those who don't as being wrong. I use one, because I respect the brewer who is so in tune with his (her) beer, and so confident in his (her) skills that he (she) does not need one. I am not that awesome yet.

SteveM said:

It's a good thing this is a "cordial" discussion - otherwise I might feel as though I was being accused of pulling peoples' chains to provoke pointless arguments, that my brewing success is based on sheer chance (well, a crapshoot anyway), that I have a lack of imagination, and that I am "bloody-minded" (whatever that is).

I guess I have nothing more to add - I can only tolerate so much of this kind of cordiality.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry you took that so personally. There was no intent for my part to throw barbs at you or any other specific person.

"Bloody-minded" is a synonym for for "stubborn". Sometimes it's a good thing; more often, it's rather not.

As I wrote before, your success is your success. I'm glad you've been successful. Your procedure works for you, and that's great!

There. Wasn't that cordial?

Bob

McKBrew said:

I use one, because I respect the brewer who is so in tune with his (her) beer, and so confident in his (her) skills that he (she) does not need one. I am not that awesome yet.

Click to expand...

Neither am I! I hope I can be, some day.

Cheers,

Bob

McKBrew said:

Damn, what a nice, cordial discussion about hydrometers. Use one if you want, but don't dismiss those who don't as being wrong. I use one, because I respect the brewer who is so in tune with his (her) beer, and so confident in his (her) skills that he (she) does not need one. I am not that awesome yet.

Click to expand...

it's not about being in tune with your beer, really.

especially for doing all-grain, it's the only way to measure efficiency (or with a refractometer, which is the same gig.)

it's also the ONLY way to measure attenuation, alcohol percentage, etc.

now, if someone leaves their beer for a month and goes straight to keg or bottle, they are probably fine. if someone tastes their sample and think that it's good enough to keg, that's fine too.

in other words, you can brew beer just fine w/o an hydrometer and noone truly "needs" one, but there are certain things you may wish to do that are impossible w/o one and it remains as the only true way to see where your beer is at

DeathBrewer said:

it's not about being in tune with your beer, really.

especially for doing all-grain, it's the only way to measure efficiency (or with a refractometer, which is the same gig.)

it's also the ONLY way to measure attenuation, alcohol percentage, etc.

now, if someone leaves their beer for a month and goes straight to keg or bottle, they are probably fine. if someone tastes their sample and think that it's good enough to keg, that's fine too.

in other words, you can brew beer just fine w/o an hydrometer and noone truly "needs" one, but there are certain things you may wish to do that are impossible w/o one and it remains as the only true way to see where your beer is at

Click to expand...

The way I look at it, if you "just want beer", and your brew is the end result, then yes, you don't really need a hydrometer. Just let it sit for 3 weeks for an ale, take a sterile beer thief sample, take a sip, and see if you want to bottle/keg.

However, if you're like me, and you get off on knowing what is happening to your beer, a hydrometer is really nice. I like knowing that I can go back over my notes & data and compare the predicted attenuation of the yeast & wort to the real world observation. I like knowing which yeasts are healthier at temperature X, or ferment faster at temperature Y.

I use bubbles as an indication of when to start thinking about my first hydrometer readings. If I get bubbles (and I usually do eventually), I wait until they've more or less stopped for 2-3 days. I don't wait until I get one every 90 seconds or so, I wait until I check the bucket 2 or 3 times during a day for a couple minutes each time, and see no activity.

Revvy & Deathbrewer, that's exactly what I bought. Damned if I could get it to work the way it should. Got it going and then it stopped on an air pocket and I just pumped a s#!t load of air into my partially racked secondary trying to get it going again. Used it as an aerator for the next batch, worked great!

love the shot of Scotch advise, new proc for me

Sorry for stirring up what is obviously a very touchy debate. WMB will have it in for me from now on and I'm afraid some ended up feeling insulted. Wasn't my intent and will be more careful in future post.

Cheers!

Dude, thanks for the sorrow, but you're not going to stop people from getting their panties in a bunch. The only way to be more careful than you've been is to not post at all!

Just keep on keepin' on.

Cheers,

Bob

If we're going to be a community of brewers then we should be:
1) Factual
2) Helpful
3) Respectful

Be factual to the best of your ability and knowledge.
It's not enough, though, to merely post the facts. You have to be helpful and that means you need to present the information with deference to the reader.
Finally when disagreements occur, we need to be respectful. Your beer is yours and that's where it ends....
To quote Orfy:

Orfy said:

It depends on how YOU want to do it.

The end result is BEER.

Click to expand...