Rapid Fermentation, and better Taste?

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.

DaBo

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Location
Deltona, FL & Hessen, GER
I was reading the following Article from the American Society for Microbiology, (http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/30/6/970.pdf)
for everyone who doesn't feel like reading the whole article, it basically states that through using a giant Stir Plate and stir bar rotating at 160rpm, they were able to reduce fermenting time from 7 Days to 4 Days. (see fig. 1)

rapidfermentation.jpg


This is what the study says about taste:
"Flavor evaluations were conducted with a taste panel of five members by comparing the test brew with a control, which was stationary microbrew. Two taste tests were run on separate days."

"The aroma and taste of the rapidly microbrewed beer were judged as acceptable or better than those of the stationary, microbrewed,control beer."

So according to this study it reduced fermenting time and produced a better tasting beer...

If this is true then why isn't everyone using a stir plate during fermentation?

Did anyone try this before? What were your results?
 
For me, I don't brew to get beer as fast as possible. I brew as a hobby and hobbies are supposed to kill time. However in the same amount of time I could develop my skills faster...

The one thing that turns me off is a large enough stir bar would most likely gouge plastice pales leaving nice homes for bacteria and other infectious microbe.

Same with a carboy...I can't imagine how much force that large of a stirbar requires to swirl, but I think if it ever got thrown it could turn a carboy into a pipe bomb.

Also I am curious to see how much power it would take (electrically) to turn a stir bar in a 5 gallon batch...I assume it is more than a <20 A circuit can provide
 
I'm inclined to view this with skepticism, except as something that might be applied to commercial brewing. As the previous post said, I'm just not in that much of a hurry. It's all too American to want to get things done in a hurry, in the most expeditious manner possible. This may be fine & dandy in a business or work setting, but brewing isn't work to me, and the day it becomes that way, I'll have done my last batch.
 
So, one thing to remember is different yeast strains like to do different things--some like to sink, some like to flocculate, some like to stay immersed, etc. Forcing a yeast in to suspension as a stir plate would do will change the cogengers, esters, and profile depending on the yeast. So, if the experiment used Notty (Go Team Nottingham Yeast!) it would probably create a more neutral, better tasting brew--cause when I use Notty that's what I want, a more rapid, less estery fermentation. If I was gonna use say a Belgian yeast, having a more rapid fermentation may not create those Belgian flavors.

TL;DR: it depends on your yeast.

ps Germelli1 all my stir bars are teflon coated, they couldn't scratch warm butter. And I really, really doubt it would even take 100 watts, since my 2000+ gallon per hour magnetic pond pump takes less than 500 watts.
 
ps Germelli1 all my stir bars are teflon coated, they couldn't scratch warm butter. And I really, really doubt it would even take 100 watts, since my 2000+ gallon per hour magnetic pond pump takes less than 500 watts.

Those are good points you bring up. Thanks for the info on my questions!
 
Sounds like its time for an experiment. I have a lab stir plate and a 1.5 inch stir bar. I've used it in a 1 gallon jug. It got a vortex going. It took a little more time to get started, but the momentum built up and the little air tornado appeared.

I'm on a 20# lift limit now. I should be off of it in a few days. Then I can move the carboys around.

Jason
 
Sounds like its time for an experiment. I have a lab stir plate and a 1.5 inch stir bar. I've used it in a 1 gallon jug. It got a vortex going. It took a little more time to get started, but the momentum built up and the little air tornado appeared.

I'm on a 20# lift limit now. I should be off of it in a few days. Then I can move the carboys around.

Jason

Just make sure not to oxydize yer wort, that *will* make it taste bad. I didn't read the entire paper to see how they kept their wort under inert gas, but I think that really is the only fair way to do it. Then again, maybe the gas from the wort keeps it sealed enough, even with a stirrer. Then again, maybe the slight oxidation found in English ales benefited the agitated sample...

Scientists, prepare to deploy Experiments! :D
 
Just make sure not to oxydize yer wort, that *will* make it taste bad. I didn't read the entire paper to see how they kept their wort under inert gas, but I think that really is the only fair way to do it. Then again, maybe the gas from the wort keeps it sealed enough, even with a stirrer. Then again, maybe the slight oxidation found in English ales benefited the agitated sample...

Scientists, prepare to deploy Experiments! :D

I think that the whole point of a stir plate is to allow more oxygen to contact the wort. Isn't it the increased oxygen that is needed to increase yeast production?
 
Thanks for posting this very interesting article. It was done with one specific strain of yeast that they fermented at 12C (53.6F), however at the end of the article they state that there was another similar experiment with a different strain of yeast fermenting at 18C (64.4F) that produced similar results.

I would bet my next paycheck that many commercial brewers are following these experiments closely. I hope that someone on this forum does their own experiment brewing the same recipe, stirring one during fermentation, and letting the other ferment normally. It would be interesting to see the result.
 
I read the article. The one thing that disturbs me is the increase in diacetyl. Maybe they didn't give the yeast time to clean up their mess after the fermentation was complete.

Another is that the tests were using 100ml and 2.4L volumes. The largest test they performed was in a container about the size of a growler.
 
First off if your airlock is working no more oxygen should come in contact. Second, the results have to come from increased suspension of cells or greater/easier access to food and nutrients, not oxygen. Frankly I don't think this information, at least at a casual or informal level is news to commercial brewers, since I've read texts about 'rousing yeast' from very old brewing books. Regardless, science rules :)
 
I've put my 6.5g carboy on a stir plate with a 1.5" stir bar to see if it was able to stir water and make an indentation in the top of the waters surface.

Let me start by saying it was very hard to get the stir bar in the center of the 6.5 gallon Carboy. The bar wants to stay on the edges. I had to put about 2 inches of water in there and move the water around to get the stir bar to cross the center and lock onto the stir plate.

I've done the same with 1/2g (growler) and 1g glass jugs in the past. These smaller containers have posed no problem with centering the stir bar or turning the starter.

Ends up I didn't have trouble turning the liquid in the 6.5g carboy either.

[youtube]PpjGOZvrMwY[/youtube]

You will see I am able to get a sizeable vortex. I have also place some tissue in the water so we can see how the water is moving.
 
So according to this study it reduced fermenting time and produced a better tasting beer...

If this is true then why isn't everyone using a stir plate during fermentation?

I don't think you can simply link fermentation time to 'better tasting'.

Yeast are always going to produce different compounds in different amounts of different volatility depending on the specifics of fermentation. depending on all the other variables present (grain bill, mash schedule, hop variety/times/amounts, yada, yada, yada) the flavors produced in this instance from such methods might have complimented the beer according to the tasting panel (yet another variable). Change any one thing in the process and you might say the exact opposite.
 
Not my video, but someone else asked about WLP002 in the comments, but the OP of the Youtube video never replied. I would have posted mine, but his is more exciting.
 
I don't think the point of the article or the OP's thread was an effort to reduce brewing time.

A faster fermentation really has nothing to do with faster brewing time. It doesn't mean you don't still leave it in the primary for 2-4 weeks. It simply states that beers that ferment faster taste better.

Saying you aren't interested in your beer tasting better or decreasing your fermentation times so you can drink your better beer faster because this is a hobby and you aren't in a rush makes no sense at all. LOL if it makes a better beer that you can enjoy faster, why not consider it?

That's like saying you won't drive a car and prefer to walk everywhere because you enjoy being outdoors.
 
I don't think the point of the article or the OP's thread was an effort to reduce brewing time.

A faster fermentation really has nothing to do with faster brewing time. It doesn't mean you don't still leave it in the primary for 2-4 weeks. It simply states that beers that ferment faster taste better.

Saying you aren't interested in your beer tasting better or decreasing your fermentation times so you can drink your better beer faster because this is a hobby and you aren't in a rush makes no sense at all. LOL if it makes a better beer that you can enjoy faster, why not consider it?

That's like saying you won't drive a car and prefer to walk everywhere because you enjoy being outdoors.

How does that analogy apply to this situation? I said I like to brew beer as a hobby, and a hobby is meant to take time. I drink maybe 1-2 homebrews a week so I don't have any desire to put out beer as fast as possible.

The transportation analogy has no relevancy to this thread whatsoever.
 
I was reading the following Article from the American Society for Microbiology, (http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/30/6/970.pdf)
for everyone who doesn't feel like reading the whole article, it basically states that through using a giant Stir Plate and stir bar rotating at 160rpm, they were able to reduce fermenting time from 7 Days to 4 Days. (see fig. 1)

rapidfermentation.jpg


This is what the study says about taste:


So according to this study it reduced fermenting time and produced a better tasting beer...

If this is true then why isn't everyone using a stir plate during fermentation?

Did anyone try this before? What were your results?
4_gal.JPG


Yes. Since this picture of my rig, I have fermented several 5 gal batches of lager on the stir plate. The fermentations have been faster and none have stuck. As far a better taste though, I cant say that. They are as good though IMO.
 
I have been wanting to do this in my Sanke Closed System Pressurized Fermentation setup. I was wondering all that was just discussed and showed by you guys. I am doing it next batch after seeing this. I proposed doing this, a while back, not for faster fermentation but for at the end of fermentation when the yeast need to clean up. I had read how some commercial breweries actually run the beer though a "filter" chamber that contains an abundance of yeast for instant maturation. Basically, it cleans the green beer fast and allows faster packaging time. While I do like taking my time, I do believe that things that don't need time and can be done faster/better should be utilized. Oxidation would be my only concern for others, but in my setup gas only escapes. I don't think others with air locks would have anything to worry about doing this. I am excited to try this out on a good clean ale, as well as my lagers.
 
Back
Top