never take individual gravity readings again

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.

2stupid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
56
Reaction score
5
i would like to have anybody tell me why this would not work / be accurate. i would think it would drastically reduce chances of infection since the fermenter is not opened at all until you bottle/keg/move to secondary.

i took initial gravity reading after pitching yeast. took my test tube and put it in a loosely sealed tall jar. left a hydrometer in the test tube. put the jar next to the fermenter. test tube is happily fermenting away and gravity is dropping. i plan on taking the hydrometer out and wiping it off with starsan after the krausen is done sticking to everything and putting it back in.
 
You are assuming that the two fermentations will match at any given time. They won't though due to a variety of factors...i.e. temp.
 
ahhh, but it is a fermentation of the exact same wort in the exact same condition side by side.
 
you never know what variables exist in those two (separate) vessels.

I'm sure they'd be "close"...but as many anal homebrewers will probably agree, close just doesn't cut it.
 
No. If the volume and fermenter geometry differ, the fermentation will differ. Also, you are assuming that your sample cell count is representative.
 
ahhh, but it is a fermentation of the exact same wort in the exact same condition side by side.

But you can't guarantee that you have the same ratio of yeast count to fermentables in your test tube. It's a good idea, and may work occasionally, but I wouldn't count it as the next best thing. Eventually, probably sooner than later, it won't work accurately.
 
i would think the yeast count would be the same as i took the sample right after shaking the fermenter up
 
i would think the yeast count would be the same as i took the sample right after shaking the fermenter up



You're talking about BILLIONS of yeast cells. There's no way to replicate it, unless you just let your hydrometer float in your fermenter. I mean, it's a good thought, it's just inevitably going to fail.
 
there is no guarantee that it is the same though.

Have you ever infected your beer by taking a gravity reading?



Exactly, you're trying to replicate a concentration on a microbiological level. It is possible; however, I don't think you have/want the tools/time to do it. Even if you can replicate this concentration and ratio, you still can't guarantee yeast in specimen A wont outlast those in specimen B, won't out-perform, stall, etc.
 
Cell count is only part of the issue. Vessel geometry greatly affects fermentation dynamics, as does volume. The temperature of the smaller sample will be more affected by outside temperature changes. At the same time, the larger vessel will tend to raise its own temperature through fermentation activity alone. The fluid pressure exerted on the yeast in the larger vessel will be greater than in the smaller, affecting metabolism and activity.

There is merit to fermenting small volumes of wort, but it's for an entirely different reason than you hypothesize, and it is not done at the same rate as a full batch fermentation. See Fast Ferment Test.
 
Plus the fact that your open test tube could pick up a wild yeast or bacteria that could change how the wort in the test tube ferments..
 
Plus the fact that your open test tube could pick up a wild yeast or bacteria that could change how the wort in the test tube ferments..



He did say that the test tube was in a jar, but still, too many other factors...
 
He did say that the test tube was in a jar, but still, too many other factors...

Ah, well I missed that. It still won't work. It would be like making 10 gallons of wort and dividing it between to 6 gallon fermentors and only taking readings out of one of them expecting that the other would be the same...
 
Yep. I mean, in theory it's a good idea. It's just unfortunate we have to brew within the realm of reality.
 
well instead, why wouldn't you ferment in a clear vessel and just leave the hydrometer in the whole time?
 
well instead, why wouldn't you ferment in a clear vessel and just leave the hydrometer in the whole time?

I've read of people doing that, but I'm thinking just take gravity samples as per the norm like we all pretty much do. I've never infected a batch by pulling a sample. If you practice good sanitation it shouldn't be a problem.. IMO
 
Cell count is only part of the issue. Vessel geometry greatly affects fermentation dynamics, as does volume. The temperature of the smaller sample will be more affected by outside temperature changes. At the same time, the larger vessel will tend to raise its own temperature through fermentation activity alone. The fluid pressure exerted on the yeast in the larger vessel will be greater than in the smaller, affecting metabolism and activity.

There is merit to fermenting small volumes of wort, but it's for an entirely different reason than you hypothesize, and it is not done at the same rate as a full batch fermentation. See Fast Ferment Test.

the fast ferment test is what made me try this - do a same temperature ferment test.

i would say fluid pressure difference of 9 cm would be negligible. i think that would be about 1.4% difference in pressure if the online calculator i used is accurate. so to take that variable away i just need to get a taller test tube and fill higher.

i thought of the temperature difference thing. this time of year i have less than 1 degree swing in room temperature in my brew room. right now the temperature difference between the two is so small i cant tell the difference on the thermometers. now i wish i had a digital one.

but we will see how accurate this is. i'll do it the next 4 batches. brew day is almost every friday.
 
If you were so set on this idea that no one could sway you from doing it, why post? You've gotten enough factual information to show that your hypothesis is flawed, yet you continue to simply be stubborn.

One more reason: most of us have more than batch going at a time. Multiple hydrometers left in any sort of fermenting liquid are not practical, regardless of the accuracy and precision.
 
If you were so set on this idea that no one could sway you from doing it, why post? You've gotten enough factual information to show that your hypothesis is flawed, yet you continue to simply be stubborn.

One more reason: most of us have more than batch going at a time. Multiple hydrometers left in any sort of fermenting liquid are not practical, regardless of the accuracy and precision.

what i asked is why this would not work. i am getting good answers. some of them supposition, some not. i am asking a great brewing community for what variables i had not thought of so they could be reduced. not for somebody saying you got your answer, now go away.
 
what i asked is why this would not work. i am getting good answers. some of them supposition, some not. i am asking a great brewing community for what variables i had not thought of so they could be reduced. not for somebody saying you got your answer, now go away.



I don't think anyone is saying go away. It's just kinda frustrating to outright tell you it won't work and why and you keep after it. I mean, food for thought is one thing, but it seems like you're outright ignoring us. The bottom line is that it won't work. It'd be nice if we could predict this stuff and completely control it, but even when we stack all the odds in our favor, things still happen that we can't control. The more changes you make to the process, the more likely you are to discover discrepancies.
 
i would like to thank anybody who has told me dont do it because of this ..... and would hope anybody that wants would keep giving more reasons why i should give up and not try this 5 times and say - hey everybody this works for me.

i am looking at scientific studies on what answers i get in response to this post for their validity. Everything i hear in any forum i take with a grain of salt and then research.

fermentation vessel size i believe does not matter, even though my preconceptions say otherwise, based on what i read here. http://www.scientificsocieties.org/jib/papers/2009/G-2009-0730-597.pdf

the most interesting thing i saw there , though off this topic is -
when discussing the successful repitching
of a lager yeast crop 135 times, concluded that “…the
effects of genetic variation were diminutive and not of
significance to the production of beer”. Their conclusion
supports our findings. Large brewers may find it worthwhile
to re-examine the current practise (perhaps dogma?)
of discarding their yeast after 10 fermentations.

Powell, C. D. and Diacetis, A. N., Long term serial repitching
and the genetic and phenotypic stability of brewer’s yeast. J. Inst.
Brew., 2007, 113, 67-74.
 
i would like to thank anybody who has told me dont do it because of this ..... and would hope anybody that wants would keep giving more reasons why i should give up and not try this 5 times and say - hey everybody this works for me.

i am looking at scientific studies on what answers i get in response to this post for their validity. Everything i hear in any forum i take with a grain of salt and then research.

fermentation vessel size i believe does not matter, even though my preconceptions say otherwise, based on what i read here. http://www.scientificsocieties.org/jib/papers/2009/G-2009-0730-597.pdf

the most interesting thing i saw there , though off this topic is -
when discussing the successful repitching
of a lager yeast crop 135 times, concluded that “…the
effects of genetic variation were diminutive and not of
significance to the production of beer”. Their conclusion
supports our findings. Large brewers may find it worthwhile
to re-examine the current practise (perhaps dogma?)
of discarding their yeast after 10 fermentations.

Powell, C. D. and Diacetis, A. N., Long term serial repitching
and the genetic and phenotypic stability of brewer’s yeast. J. Inst.
Brew., 2007, 113, 67-74.


I don't think it'll effect your beer and to be honest, I'd be interested in seeing your results if you do each one exactly the same. Maybe take readings every 24 hours on each to see if there are any differences. I'd like to see what you find out, I just don't honestly see it working in the long run. Again, I don't even see how it could effect your beer, I just don't see readings from the test tube remaining 100% indicative of what's going on in your fermenter with all/any brews.


To be 100% sure, you should send me a bottle of each of these brews so I can take readings as well!!
 
Can I be the first to ask why exactly? I know you said in the first post to reduce the risk of infection, etc. but then why not just not take a second reading if your that worried (just leave it 2+ weeks)? Does it matter if you know your beer is 4.5% or 4.8%?
But in saying that your proposed idea should be able to let you know something to stick on it instead of my common line of "oh, it's probably about 5ish %".
I would not use the test to determine when the beer was finished (I'd just leave it for 2+ weeks) but if I was bothered enough to keep a sample around for 2+ weeks I'd use it as my approximate final gravity (or check the actual FG if the sample was in at 20+ and it wasn't expected). :)
 
Can I be the first to ask why exactly?

why exactly = to see if i can be lazy, to know the exact proper time to take my lager down in temperature, to not lose beer from taking gravity readings, to stop wondering how the heck i take a gravity reading if i make a 2.5 gallon batch in a 5 gallon carboy, to refine my process and help others refine to drunken perfection, or maybe just to share a thought of possibility.

one thing i have learned with making beer is there is no right way of making it. i have found a few wrong ways, such as using no rice hulls with 60% rye grist.
 
It's called a "satellite fermenter" and it's been around, and shot down for years.

It a will only tell you WHAT YOUR BEER WILL FINISH AT, NOT when your 5 gallon batch of beer will be done.

It's used to measure attenuation of the yeast, not rate of fermentation.

It will take yeast a lot less time to chew through 12 ounces of wort than it will 5 gallons.....so don't trust that silly thing that someone came up with because they are too afraid to take samples from their beer as being accurate.

If you do take that as "gospel" you more than likely are rushing your beer off the yeast way to soon. You know "bottle Bombs" or suddenly posting an "is my beer in secondary ruined?" thread because now that you moved it to secondary because the "satellite" said it was done, you now have this scary looking growth that you have never seen in your bucket (because the lid is one) that suddenly grew on top of your wort and is ugly as sin....which we of course will tell you to rdwhahb because that is just krausen and it formed because you racked too soon and the yeast is still trying to work to make beer for you.

The idea came from commercial breweries, but you have to realize when they are using in it a 3 or 7 or 10bbl fermentaion setup, that their sattelite looks like this.

PB021295.JPG


And they are drawing off hydro sample out of that bucket just like we do.

And they are STILL going to be taking readings and tasting the REAL beer in the ACTUAL FERMENTER, before making any determination.

It's been adopted by some home brewers, and unfortunately gets perpetuated by people (mostly noobs scared of taking real hydro readings) but it's about as accurate as airlock bubbling, (and you know where I count that in terms of fermentation gauges- slightly below the astrological calender :D)

Please don't fear taking a real hydro sample of your beer, don't ever go by a satellite grav reading.....Or an airlock....

Just take your grav reading and be done with it. And drink your samples.

In homebrewing there is so much that we advise folks not to do, yet the one thing that EVERY book, podcast, magazine and website talks about is gravity readings....

How do you think we get them?

Do you think the advice to take them is a vast conspiracy by us old timers to ruin millions of new brewer's batches, so that they flee the hobby and give it a bad rap? Or so they make crappy beer and we kick your asses in contests?

With simple sanitization practices openning the fermenter to take a reading is perfectly safe. You won't spoil your beer.

I know it's a scary premise, but it is really silly to avoid something scientific like a gravity reading because you're afraid of that and instead rely on something faulty like counting bubbles. You have to man up, grow some stones and get over the idea that openning your fermenter to do something positive like take a gravity reading, is dangerous.

Our beer is much stronger than that.
 
Fermenter size DOES matter, and it's easy to see with anyone who bottles with both 12 ouncers and pint or 22 ounce bombers. They're tons of threads of folks saying that at week "x" their 12 ounce beers are carbed and conditioned, while the larger beers are still flat or green. And that's on with a difference of about 10 ounces......

It's even more magnified when you have a discrepancy of gallons.

You've only now heard of this or thought of this, but it's been discussed and discredited for years.

Yuri said:
One more reason: most of us have more than batch going at a time. Multiple hydrometers left in any sort of fermenting liquid are not practical, regardless of the accuracy and precision.

I'm sure as heck not getting 12 hydrometers.


2stupid, if you're that much of a chicken to take real readings, ferment in a carboy and get brewballs and use them.

BrewBallsPackage3.jpg


Brewballs-1.jpg


http://www.brewballstore.com/

They're made for folks just like you, who believe the hype, that opening a fermenter is dangerous...
 
fermentation vessel size i believe does not matter, even though my preconceptions say otherwise, based on what i read here. http://www.scientificsocieties.org/jib/papers/2009/G-2009-0730-597.pdf

Serious question: if you don't believe a scientific study using careful statistical analysis that says fermentation vessel size does affect fermentation, why should the opinions of people in an online forum matter? Do you have any specific reasons to doubt the results of that study?

I do think you're looking for a solution to a non-existent problem. But as to why it wouldn't work, another difference between your primary fermenter and "satellite fermenter," (other than one being 100x bigger, and the issues with temperature already mentioned), is oxygen. The yeast in your loosely-covered jar will have more access to oxygen than the ones in your airlock sealed fermenter, so they may replicate more and eat through the wort sugars more quickly. Assuming all other factors being equal, and that's a very big assumption, I'd expect the jar to ferment faster.
 
Sounds to me like over complicating a wonderful biological process. Just let those yeastys do their job, go have a beer, and stop frettin about it. I have seen alot of reports and you tube crap about brewing, and watched friends over complicate the natural process to the point they ruin their beer by believing EVERYTHING they watch read or hear. When Papazian said RDWHAHB, he said it all....
 
Serious question: if you don't believe a scientific study using careful statistical analysis that says fermentation vessel size does affect fermentation, why should the opinions of people in an online forum matter? Do you have any specific reasons to doubt the results of that study?

I do think you're looking for a solution to a non-existent problem. But as to why it wouldn't work, another difference between your primary fermenter and "satellite fermenter," (other than one being 100x bigger, and the issues with temperature already mentioned), is oxygen. The yeast in your loosely-covered jar will have more access to oxygen than the ones in your airlock sealed fermenter, so they may replicate more and eat through the wort sugars more quickly. Assuming all other factors being equal, and that's a very big assumption, I'd expect the jar to ferment faster.

serious answer, the study quoted says to their surprise that fermenter size and shape does not matter.
 
Re-read the paper. Fermenting volume had a significant effect on gravity at 48 hrs, pH, and ADF.
 
serious answer, the study quoted says to their surprise that fermenter size and shape does not matter.

It said the shape does not matter. It said the volume (that would be the size of the wort) had a "Significant Difference". The answer to your question is in the reference material you have provided.

I'll just echo what most everyone else has said. They are not going to ferment at the same rate, with the volume being a key reason. They may however finish at the same FG.

But hey im all for experimentation, and finding ways to do things your own way so go for it man. Perhaps you could rig your method, and also do one like yours but having the same volume. Perhaps you will see a diffrence?
 
I've been doing something similar for a while and the readings are always pretty close. Thing is, at some point the reading starts going UP. I'm guessing it is because of the alcohol evaporation. I just leave mine sitting out in the open. That said, my second hydrometer is one of the 'stubbies' and I always have enough left in the bucket for some kind of reading. Like I said, the readings are always very close.
 
after reading up on this more, i wonder why some kits say to use a satellite fermenter in their instructions.

so, i taped bubble wrap against my fermenter, put an airlock on my test tube and slipped it in between wrap and fermenter.

took ~36 hour reading on both. started at 1.047 . both read 1.040 at 53 degrees
 
You're talking about BILLIONS of yeast cells. There's no way to replicate it, unless you just let your hydrometer float in your fermenter. I mean, it's a good thought, it's just inevitably going to fail.

So....what if.... and this assumes you can devote 1 hydrometer per fermentation vessel you use--- what if you installed a sight glass on your fermenter? In the same way people use them on boil kettles to measure volume, you should be able to install one with a large enough ID to accomodate your hydrometer.

You'd probably want to rock the fermenter some before reading the hydro, and you'd have some wort exposed to light (depending on where you ferment and realistically it'll never get enough to cause skunking) and some wort that would be exposed to a less stable temperature...but we're talking a few oz of liquid only so that shouldnt be enough to generate any off flavors.

Still, if you really want to avoid opening the fermenter and be able to take hydro readings, this may be something to look into.
 
It puts the lotion on its skin...

It was wondering how It was going to get Its back. thanks , but that was weird.

anyway, much to my disbelief after all the feedback of many (i truly am not being sarcastic) . at ~72 hours , both at 53 degrees , the reading is 1.024 in the test tube and my fresh sample.
 
Whether it's been tested before or not, sounds like an interesting experiment. No reason not to test it yourself.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top