Carboy vs Bucket Fermenting??

[LLBeanJ]

I mean, Brulosopher does countless exBeeriments measuring various "key" factors (fermentation temp, aeration, etc) and achieves no statistical significance on a huge number of factors that are said to be crucial by the homebrewing community.

Then, for the first time in quite a while, he not only achieves statistical significance on a factor (glass and plastic can be distinguished) but in addition an overwhelming majority of those who made the right call prefer glass. This is extremely rare for Brulosopher... when he achieves significance on a factor, more often than not people are split on which they prefer.

And yet, we still have people insisting that there are no disadvantages to PET. We all have our personal experience, and maybe we are even one of those people who can't tell the difference so it doesn't matter to us. But Jeez, this is hard science here folks, not biased ranting from a single homebrewer. According to the best objective test we have, carboy-fermented beer is different and is preferred by a large majority of people who can taste the difference. That is now basically a fact. What you choose to do with it is up to you, of course.

Honestly, I read Marshall's write up and I came away with the exact opposite impression. Sure, for once he achieved results with strong statistical significance, but only on the first tasting. Then, after the secret was revealed and some of the participants had more beer, even when trying to tell the difference, they could no longer do so. What does that mean? I'm not altogether sure what the experiment really tells us. Even Marshall stated that much more data would be needed before a solid conclusion could be had. And it's not out of the realm of possibility that the first tasting results could have been a fluke. I'll tell you what though, in reading the results, it did make me want to brew his Cali Common recipe.

If you like your glass, keep using it. I won't mind at all. But, I'm with Marshall on this; I won't be switching from plastic anytime soon.

 

[ZebulonBrewer]

Honestly, I read Marshall's write up and I came away with the exact opposite impression. Sure, for once he achieved results with strong statistical significance, but only on the first tasting. Then, after the secret was revealed and some of the participants had more beer, even when trying to tell the difference, they could no longer do so. What does that mean? I'm not altogether sure what the experiment really tells us. Even Marshall stated that much more data would be needed before a solid conclusion could be had. And it's not out of the realm of possibility that the first tasting results could have been a fluke. I'll tell you what though, in reading the results, it did make me want to brew his Cali Common recipe.

If you like your glass, keep using it. I won't mind at all. But, I'm with Marshall on this; I won't be switching from plastic anytime soon.

Totally agreed. There was a difference, and the triangle test didn't lie. My Engineering Statistics professor always said, "Figures never lie, but liars sometimes figure." Was it a big difference? No. Do we know the complete nature of the difference? **** no.

There was a delay in fermentation beginning (for the PET), maybe that had something to do with it (material related or otherwise. It was a mixed slurry split between two fermenters).

It is my understanding that there is a protective coating of some sort on PET (I'm not totally sure), and this could be gone after several uses as a fermenter.

The biggest thing people point to is 'polymers are porous so it must be oxidation.' Without lab tests, it's hard to know what the chemical difference is, so without more info, this is a very fascinating experiment, but not something people should flip out over, and change to glass/away from PET/HDPE.

I use buckets, and I make good beer. I'm sticking to it until there is more evidence.

 

[LLBeanJ]

I actually agree with you - you don't need to worry about sealing much in "primary" - and because the term is used loosely, let's say the first week or so, when fermentation is highly active. If your yeast is very healthy this will be a quick process, and you can certainly do secondary in kegs -I do it quite a bit now myself. But then you can even do primary in the kegs, no need for buckets?

Not sure why you complain about the price, the glass carboys are $25-30. In fact the same price as PET bottles, roughly - or even the buckets that typically go for ~$20. Kegs are quite a bit more expensive ($80-100 for new ones), typically fit only 5G instead of ~6-6.5G fermenters and they are sort of useless unless one invests in CO2 tanks regulators, connectors, keggerators etc. - I did and I am happy about it, but that's where the costs really skyrocket.

If someone is building a basic home-brew setup, I would still recommend PET fermenters over buckets for primary (and secondary) - buckets can be scratched more easily and non-transparent - in my opinion they offer no advantages over PET fermenters, except maybe slightly lower price point (but may need to be replaced more often) and stickability for storage if you have more than one.

I wasn't complaining about the price, just suggested putting that money to better use. Carboys have one purpose, kegs have several. Also, sure, you can ferment in kegs, many on here do just that. I don't find it practical, given their size, so I would not recommend that to anyone, but if someone wants to go that route, more power to them.

As far as buckets having no advantages over PET fermenters, I'd counter with these: 1) they're much easier to clean; 2) they're easier to handle; 3) potentially easier to get your beer into them (not the case if you have a ball valve on your kettle), but if you're pouring the beer from kettle to fermenter, that big bucket opening sure makes it easier; 4) easier to take a gravity sample.

And as far as the drawbacks to buckets you give, I'd counter those with: 1) scratches - this is paranoia. I abuse my bucket fermenters pretty hard and have never had one be the source of an infection. I'm sure they're scratched plenty, but sanitizer works really well; 2) non-transparent - why do I need to see inside? The lid is right there. Lift it. It takes all of about 1.5 seconds to see if there is krausen on top or not. I check mine daily to determine status.

At any rate, we could go back and forth with each other about this endlessly. At the end of the day, I'm not going to persuade you that I'm right and you're not going to persuade me that you're right. Best case is that others reading this who are trying to decide which route to take will see all of the arguments and will be able to make an informed decision based on their own needs and concerns. So, that's something, at least.

 

[kombat]

[F]or once, [Marshall] achieved results with strong statistical significance, but only on the first tasting. Then, after the secret was revealed and some of the participants had more beer, even when trying to tell the difference, they could no longer do so.

Did you read a different article than I did? Because in this one, 14 people out of 25 could tell the difference initially. Then, of those 14, 12 could still tell the difference after the variable being tested was revealed, with 10 of them preferring the batch fermented in glass.

 

[kombat]

I'll make 2 points in defense of glass carboys.

1.) Cleaning - What's hard about cleaning a glass carboy? Rinse out the trub with hot water. Fill it to the brim with hot PBW solution. Leave it for 24 hours. Rinse it out. No scrubbing required. How hard is that?

2.) Cost - If you live anywhere near a moderate-to-large urban center, you can find used carboys of various sizes all day long on Craigslist and Kijiji for $10 -$15 with ease. Used is not a concern, because (per point #1, above), cleaning them is trivial.

 

[LLBeanJ]

Did you read a different article than I did? Because in this one, 14 people out of 25 could tell the difference initially. Then, of those 14, 12 could still tell the difference after the variable being tested was revealed, with 10 of them preferring the batch fermented in glass.

Sure, I read the same article. And right after the part you quoted came this:

"After all of the data was collected, I disclosed the nature of the xBmt and asked my friends how confident they were in their selections, not a single one felt with any certainty they got it right. We proceeded to our planned Cal Common comparison. Standing in a circle of six, the few of us who participated began pouring samples for each other, the glass fermented beer was the first I shared. One round down, it was my turn to fill taster glasses with more Cal Common, only this time I poured from the growler of PET fermented beer, something I intentionally failed to inform my friends about. No one seemed to notice, all comments were consistent with those from the first round. I share this only to illustrate how similar these beers were despite being reliably distinguishable by participants intently focused on their differences."

 

[LLBeanJ]

I'll make 2 points in defense of glass carboys.

1.) Cleaning - What's hard about cleaning a glass carboy? Rinse out the trub with hot water. Fill it to the brim with hot PBW solution. Leave it for 24 hours. Rinse it out. No scrubbing required. How hard is that?

Without a doubt, that sounds easy.

Here's my process to clean a bucket:
1) Dump yeast in sink
2) Spray out bucket with hot water from faucet
3) Wipe off any cling-ons with a paper towel
4) Rinse with hot water from faucet
5) Put away wet
Total time: 5 minutes; No PBW required. No risk of losing my grip on a big, wet, glass container.

You can stick to your process and I'll stick to mine. It's all good.

 

[theseeker4]

I mean, Brulosopher does countless exBeeriments measuring various "key" factors (fermentation temp, aeration, etc) and achieves no statistical significance on a huge number of factors that are said to be crucial by the homebrewing community.

Then, for the first time in quite a while, he not only achieves statistical significance on a factor (glass and plastic can be distinguished) but in addition an overwhelming majority of those who made the right call prefer glass. This is extremely rare for Brulosopher... when he achieves significance on a factor, more often than not people are split on which they prefer.

And yet, we still have people insisting that there are no disadvantages to PET. We all have our personal experience, and maybe we are even one of those people who can't tell the difference so it doesn't matter to us. But Jeez, this is hard science here folks, not biased ranting from a single homebrewer. According to the best objective test we have, carboy-fermented beer is different and is preferred by a large majority of people who can taste the difference. That is now basically a fact. What you choose to do with it is up to you, of course.

You do realize, I hope, that the brulosopher tests, while fun "experiments", are hardly "hard science", whether they show significance or not..... Claiming that the findings on a variable in one of the experiments is "basically a fact" is beyond a stretch......

 

[kh54s10]

I'll make 2 points in defense of glass carboys.

1.) Cleaning - What's hard about cleaning a glass carboy? Rinse out the trub with hot water. Fill it to the brim with hot PBW solution. Leave it for 24 hours. Rinse it out. No scrubbing required. How hard is that?

2.) Cost - If you live anywhere near a moderate-to-large urban center, you can find used carboys of various sizes all day long on Craigslist and Kijiji for $10 -$15 with ease. Used is not a concern, because (per point #1, above), cleaning them is trivial.

How much does your glass carboy weigh? My PET bottle weighs 1.52 lbs. Cleaning is the exact same procedure.

What happens when you drop it? My PET bottle will bounce (if not full and then it will only be a mess, not a trip to the ER).

On average my PET bottles might have been a little more $15-$18. They retail for about $30 but I buy on 2 for 1 sales.

My buckets weigh about 2.7 lbs and to me are harder to clean that the PET bottles so don't get used often. (mostly for wine)

PLASTIC all the way. Glass is just too dangerous for the small possibility that the beer might be better.

 

[jplowe]

Cleaning out the bucket is way easier than cleaning out the betterbottle or carboy. I see no difference in quality when i use the other two but the ease of cleaning is what keeps me coming back to the basic plastic bucket.

 

[55x11]

I wasn't complaining about the price, just suggested putting that money to better use. Carboys have one purpose, kegs have several. Also, sure, you can ferment in kegs, many on here do just that. I don't find it practical, given their size, so I would not recommend that to anyone, but if someone wants to go that route, more power to them.

As far as buckets having no advantages over PET fermenters, I'd counter with these: 1) they're much easier to clean; 2) they're easier to handle; 3) potentially easier to get your beer into them (not the case if you have a ball valve on your kettle), but if you're pouring the beer from kettle to fermenter, that big bucket opening sure makes it easier; 4) easier to take a gravity sample.

And as far as the drawbacks to buckets you give, I'd counter those with: 1) scratches - this is paranoia. I abuse my bucket fermenters pretty hard and have never had one be the source of an infection. I'm sure they're scratched plenty, but sanitizer works really well; 2) non-transparent - why do I need to see inside? The lid is right there. Lift it. It takes all of about 1.5 seconds to see if there is krausen on top or not. I check mine daily to determine status.

At any rate, we could go back and forth with each other about this endlessly. At the end of the day, I'm not going to persuade you that I'm right and you're not going to persuade me that you're right. Best case is that others reading this who are trying to decide which route to take will see all of the arguments and will be able to make an informed decision based on their own needs and concerns. So, that's something, at least.

It's a bit like religious arguments, but I think we agree on most points actually, it's just that our definition of "sweet spot" requirements is different.

I do find value of seeing the fermentation process (from the side, not the top) as it proceeds.

I have read numerous posts about people developing infections from scratches in plastic (so even PET bottles have to be handled carefully on the inside - no brushes). Jamil Zainashev on his podcast mentioned that even rough hands can create scratches that will harbor bacteria - perhaps it's possible to escape it for a while but I just don't want to worry about it.

Finally, the bucket walls are oxygen permeable (even if you close the lid properly). So ok for active fermentation short term but probably NOT for longer term aging (no big beers like RIS, no sours etc.) - use fermenters or kegs for those.

I don't see any big differences in handling ease between PET fermenters and buckets. Transfer is easier actually because once again - you can see (from the side) where traub layer begins, and whether it settled in properly after cold crashing, gelatin, etc. Otherwise you are doing transfer semi-blindly.

In any case, depending on what criteria are important to you, all options could be highly viable. There is a long sticky on the pros and cons. For my criteria, buckets almost always lose out to something else though. I used it in the past but only when all other fermenters were taken.

 

[oljimmy]

Honestly, I read Marshall's write up and I came away with the exact opposite impression. Sure, for once he achieved results with strong statistical significance, but only on the first tasting. Then, after the secret was revealed and some of the participants had more beer, even when trying to tell the difference, they could no longer do so. What does that mean? I'm not altogether sure what the experiment really tells us. Even Marshall stated that much more data would be needed before a solid conclusion could be had. And it's not out of the realm of possibility that the first tasting results could have been a fluke. I'll tell you what though, in reading the results, it did make me want to brew his Cali Common recipe.

If you like your glass, keep using it. I won't mind at all. But, I'm with Marshall on this; I won't be switching from plastic anytime soon.

Fair enough. I just want to say, though, that *any* scientific result can be disputed as a "fluke". Science builds correlations, and when it has enough correlations, it infers causation (i.e. the variable in question is significant). But all those correlations could still be fluky. In other words, if we stopped believing every result because it *could* be fluky, you'd have to stop believing every scientific experiment ever.

Also, surely our taste buds are affected when we drink lots, so the fact that the apparent differences disappeared after lots more beer isn't relevant. When a BMC is my 8th beer I love it, when it's my 1st I have to choke it down. This is why the first tasting is the only one that matters.

For sure, I went too far in speaking of this as a "fact", but I'm still somewhat amazed that the experimental results aren't changing more minds or making people more nervous about plastic.

 

[idiotsinc]

I had 2 glass carboys. I have to stress the word HAD. And no, I didn't give them away or sell them. I just HAD them.

 

[LLBeanJ]

For sure, I went too far in speaking of this as a "fact", but I'm still somewhat amazed that the experimental results aren't changing more minds or making people more nervous about plastic.

I guess I would need to see a few more experiments like this one that corroborate the results before I'd be convinced there was any difference, I.e., the results of the first round were not a fluke. Repeatability needs to be a factor, does it not? Until you have repeatable results, it's just a one-off, an anecdote, really. As was touched on a bit in previous posts, are we sure it was the plastic vs glass the caused the tasters to prefer the glass-fermented beer? Could it have been something else? More experiments are needed to reach a truly scientific conclusion.

But, just for argument's sake, if I were to concede now that this experiment confirms what the pro-glass crowd has been believing all along, I would still not switch to glass simply due to all the reasons stated in the many posts above. I'd be willing to sacrifice a minor perceivable flaw in the finished product to maintain the convenience and ease of use that comes with plastic. Just not enough bang for the buck to make a switch here.

 

[MaryB]

Fact? From ONE experiment? I disagree, Theory that needs further research to PROVE it as fact!

I mean, Brulosopher does countless exBeeriments measuring various "key" factors (fermentation temp, aeration, etc) and achieves no statistical significance on a huge number of factors that are said to be crucial by the homebrewing community.

Then, for the first time in quite a while, he not only achieves statistical significance on a factor (glass and plastic can be distinguished) but in addition an overwhelming majority of those who made the right call prefer glass. This is extremely rare for Brulosopher... when he achieves significance on a factor, more often than not people are split on which they prefer.

And yet, we still have people insisting that there are no disadvantages to PET. We all have our personal experience, and maybe we are even one of those people who can't tell the difference so it doesn't matter to us. But Jeez, this is hard science here folks, not biased ranting from a single homebrewer. According to the best objective test we have, carboy-fermented beer is different and is preferred by a large majority of people who can taste the difference. That is now basically a fact. What you choose to do with it is up to you, of course.

 

[MaryB]

Has anyone looked up the actual figure for oxygen infiltration for the typical 6.5 gallon fermenting bucket wall thickness? I would be willing to bet over a period of a month that it is so minimal as to be insignificant on the beer. How long is a PET bottle of soda good for? Use by dates are often 6 months to a year out. That is how long it takes for the CO2 to leak out.

 

[kombat]

It wasn't one experiment, it was two. The other one was glass vs. bucket, and it also attained significance.

 

[LLBeanJ]

It wasn't one experiment, it was two. The other one was glass vs. bucket, and it also attained significance.

Actually, if we're looking at the same one, wasn't the first one a plastic bucket vs. a PET carboy experiment?

I might try a similar experiment myself one these days. However, it will be plastic vs stainless. I would never go back to glass, but I have thought several times about making a switch to SST fermenters. A move to SST would have to maintain the same convenience of buckets, though, so rather than a conical or something similar, I've been contemplating making a fermenter out of my old 8 gallon SST BK.

 

[kombat]

Actually, if we're looking at the same one, wasn't the first one a plastic bucket vs. a PET carboy experiment?

Whoops, my bad, you're right.

This is not a new debate - each type of fermenter has its pluses and minuses. Choice of fermenter is a personal decision, and I think it's safe to say that even if there are palpable differences in the resulting beer, they're very minor in comparison to other factors (such as sanitation, recipe design, yeast health, pitch rate, and temperature control, etc.).

 

[wilserbrewer]

I just looked at both of these exbeeriments, and perhaps find them flawed because of the following....

Bucket vs PET Carboy
The author states that he was able to very cleanly rack the beer from the carboy, yet when draining the bucket through the spigot, a fair amount of yeast cake was transferred to the keg, hence different beers perhaps?

Glass vs PET Carboy
Quote from exbeeriment, "I returned 28 hours later to find the beer in the glass carboy actively fermenting, while the beer in the PET carboy looked dead."

The glass fermenter experienced the onset of fermentation a full 28 hours sooner than the PET, then both were warmed on the same schedule? Perhaps the ferm chamber chilled the PET carboy more due to less mass and fermentation was much slower to start? Regardless, these were 2 different fermentations! How does one explain the lengthy lag time w/ the PET fermenter? Two different fermentations, will yield 2 different beers!

I just don't think the differences presented can be directly attributed to the fermenter...

Maybe Marshall should try 2 identical batches and see if there is statistical significance that they are different??? lol. How clean are the serving kegs, lines, taps and growlers used in the exbeeriment?

 

[kombat]

I don't buy the "different fermentations" argument. It was one single wort, simply split into 2 fermentation vessels. It was one batch of yeast, prepared in a single vessel, and then half was poured in one, and half was poured in the other. There's no reason why one would start fermenting before the other. I think the explanation is simply that for whatever reason, the PET carboy was stifling the formation of a krausen, but the fermentations themselves were (as they logically should have) progressing at identical rates. What possible reason could there be for them NOT to?

 

[55x11]

I just looked at both of these exbeeriments, and perhaps find them flawed because of the following....

Bucket vs PET Carboy
The author states that he was able to very cleanly rack the beer from the carboy, yet when draining the bucket through the spigot, a fair amount of yeast cake was transferred to the keg, hence different beers perhaps?

Glass vs PET Carboy
Quote from exbeeriment, "I returned 28 hours later to find the beer in the glass carboy actively fermenting, while the beer in the PET carboy looked dead."

The glass fermenter experienced the onset of fermentation a full 28 hours sooner than the PET, then both were warmed on the same schedule? Perhaps the ferm chamber chilled the PET carboy more due to less mass and fermentation was much slower to start? Regardless, these were 2 different fermentations! How does one explain the lengthy lag time w/ the PET fermenter? Two different fermentations, will yield 2 different beers!

I just don't think the differences presented can be directly attributed to the fermenter...

Maybe Marshall should try 2 identical batches and see if there is statistical significance that they are different??? lol. How clean are the serving kegs, lines, taps and growlers used in the exbeeriment?

On bucket transfer from Brulosophy:

"I start my siphon from the middle of the carboy, allowing me to avoid sucking up too much trub while kegging. With the bucket, the spigot is low enough that trub actually builds up in it and, despite my best efforts to clear it prior to packaging, quite a bit made it into the keg. The only real downside to this is that it took a few more throwaway ounces to get to the “clean” stuff, as the floaters were absent by the time the beers were ready for evaluation."

You can look at it as a flaw in the experimental design but you can also view it as the real-world feature of the fermentor system. I suspect most people using buckets will use spigot for transfer instead of siphon.

For the glass vs. PET, Brulosophy states:
"The filled carboys were covered with foil and placed in a cool chamber, it took about 4 hours for both to stabilize at my target fermentation temperature of 60°F/16°C. I rehydrated two packs of Saflager W-34/70 in warm water for 15 minutes then evenly split the slurry between the carboys."

So the temperature was measured and stable in both prior to pitching the yeast - whatever difference in lag in fermentation must be attributable to the fermenter - perhaps roughness of the internal carboy surface, as others suggested, played a key role.

 

[wilserbrewer]

I don't buy the "different fermentations" argument. It was one single wort, simply split into 2 fermentation vessels. It was one batch of yeast, prepared in a single vessel, and then half was poured in one, and half was poured in the other. There's no reason why one would start fermenting before the other. I think the explanation is simply that for whatever reason, the PET carboy was stifling the formation of a krausen, but the fermentations themselves were (as they logically should have) progressing at identical rates. What possible reason could there be for them NOT to?

Do these look identical? C'mon really They sure don't look identical to me...
Maybe we should just draw the conclusion that fermentation starts much faster in glass than PET...



The reasons for them not to be identical are infinite

 

[dkennedy]

I use a 5 Gallon bucket for fermentation is there any advantage to use a glass Carboy?

Way to pull the pin...

My $0.02, or less with inflation: buckets are available, resilient, cheap enough to replace, easy to clean, and result in beer that I am proud of.

The key is the last bit: Happy with your beer? Rock on with your bad self. I'd love to have all stainless, but that's pricy...maybe when I win the lottery.