Spike Conical- observations and best practices

Yakima 728
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.
itsnotrequired said:
i'm doing it more to just get the wort out of the fitting, so it does dry out and gum something up. sanitizer is handy, might as well use it...
Click to expand...

OK. I don't bother. It doesn't get gummy even when I take multiple samples. I do disassemble and soak in PBW then sanitize as part of my between batch cleaning regimene.
 
There seems to be a mix of things being mentioned. My posts #2229 and #2233 were about the dumping butterfly valve, but it would apply to the racking butterfly valve as well. Then somehow that shifted to a sampling valve. The sampling valves on Spike's CF series are not butterfly valves.

A repeatable sanitation regimen should be established by all brewers. While I understand many brewers as well as pro brewers may have different processes, I do not understand why some are not thorough with their own processes. The dumping and racking butterfly valves may be used at different times throughout the fermentation process, (including to inject hops, spices, etc.) whereas the use sampling valve is generally near the end after dry hopping, after spices addition, etc. when you are about to transfer the beer where the alcohol level is higher and you want to taste the beer. Typically, the sampling valve is rinsed/sanitized so that it does not gum up. I'm not aware of anyone injecting anything into the fermenter through Spike's sampling valve.

If one believes in the logic of rinsing and sanitizing the butterfly valves after each use in the first place by trying to perform such a feat, then why would one perform it half way and not knowing if their process removed everything by visually inspecting the bottom of the valve. Inconvenience doesn't seem like an excuse and conflicts with performing the process in the first place. The "meh, it's good enough for me" should not be the standard, but is perfectly fine for those that want to take that route.

There is so much information on various websites that go into detail on cleaning and sanitation methods and why. YouTube has many videos of probrewers showing their methods. I find probrewer.com gives a lot of good information on many topics including on cleaning and sanitation processes.
 
CodeSection said:
There seems to be a mix of things being mentioned. My posts #2229 and #2233 were about the dumping butterfly valve, but it would apply to the racking butterfly valve as well. Then somehow that shifted to a sampling valve. The sampling valves on Spike's CF series are not butterfly valves.

A repeatable sanitation regimen should be established by all brewers. While I understand many brewers as well as pro brewers may have different processes, I do not understand why some are not thorough with their own processes. The dumping and racking butterfly valves may be used at different times throughout the fermentation process, (including to inject hops, spices, etc.) whereas the use sampling valve is generally near the end after dry hopping, after spices addition, etc. when you are about to transfer the beer where the alcohol level is higher and you want to taste the beer. Typically, the sampling valve is rinsed/sanitized so that it does not gum up. I'm not aware of anyone injecting anything into the fermenter through Spike's sampling valve.

If one believes in the logic of rinsing and sanitizing the butterfly valves after each use in the first place by trying to perform such a feat, then why would one perform it half way and not knowing if their process removed everything by visually inspecting the bottom of the valve. Inconvenience doesn't seem like an excuse and conflicts with performing the process in the first place. The "meh, it's good enough for me" should not be the standard, but is perfectly fine for those that want to take that route.

There is so much information on various websites that go into detail on cleaning and sanitation methods and why. YouTube has many videos of probrewers showing their methods. I find probrewer.com gives a lot of good information on many topics including on cleaning and sanitation processes.
Click to expand...

No offense but you seem like a very risk averse person. All risk is relative. If I don't sanitize my butterfly valve then I drive to the grocery store, I am risking am infected beer ($60 or so), then death in a car crash (higher probability than an infection I would guess). So which one is dumber?

Yet which one seems more normal?.. It's just about normalization of risk. Everything is temporary, everyone dies, no beer is perfect, RDWHAHB

On a different note, the entire notion of ice insulating the coils of a glycol chiller is absolutely nonsense.

The Liquid surrounding the coil freezes. Therefore it has reached the minimum temperature that liquid can reach before freezing. In your glycol let's assume 18F for a 20% glycol solution. If your coil builds up a thick layer of ice, and your set point is 28F, that means that ice will continue to cool your resevoir toward 18F until it has melted.

I just left my chiller on cooling from 84F down to 28F. Overnight it built up a thick layer of ice, the bulk temp was 34F, so I shut the power off to let the ice melt. 8 hours later the reservoir is colder than it was when I shut the power off 8 hours ago it's now 28F
 
TheMadKing said:
No offense but you seem like a very risk averse person. All risk is relative. If I don't sanitize my butterfly valve then I drive to the grocery store, I am risking am infected beer ($60 or so), then death in a car crash (higher probability than an infection I would guess). So which one is dumber?

Yet which one seems more normal?.. It's just about normalization of risk. Everything is temporary, everyone dies, no beer is perfect, RDWHAHB

On a different note, the entire notion of ice insulating the coils of a glycol chiller is absolutely nonsense.

The Liquid surrounding the coil freezes. Therefore it has reached the minimum temperature that liquid can reach before freezing. In your glycol let's assume 18F for a 20% glycol solution. If your coil builds up a thick layer of ice, and your set point is 28F, that means that ice will continue to cool your resevoir toward 18F until it has melted.

I just left my chiller on cooling from 84F down to 28F. Overnight it built up a thick layer of ice, the bulk temp was 34F, so I shut the power off to let the ice melt. 8 hours later the reservoir is colder than it was when I shut the power off 8 hours ago it's now 28F
Click to expand...

Interesting spin and shift to now go from cleaning, rinsing and sanitizing processes to probabilities and potential death. Anyone can compare other scenarios to try to make a point that there are more important risks out there, just as anyone can make up different scenarios where not following standard operation procedures and checklists like a pilot performs can cause problems. At the end of the day, there are riskier things out there but I believe it is pointless to shift this discussion to those items.

I believe the point of this forum is for individuals to learn how to better their processes and brewing. To suggest there are more riskier items faced in life is an unnecessary distraction about individuals contradicting themselves on cleaning and sanitizing procedures or processes. Again, they can do whatever they want. But their methods should not be thought of as a standard when it is obviously not. They have the choice to refine processes if they want.

In your example of not rinsing or sanitizing your butterfly valve after use during fermentation, you do not mention if you will be performing multiple processes with it ie. injecting items or ingredients into the fermenter. As for the driving analogy, I would suggest a new and inexperienced driver tailgating the driver in front of them could learn new refined driving habits to avoid the potential of an accident. It is no different with cleaning and sanitizing methods when brewing. Just because something negatively hasn't occurred, doesn't mean refining ones procedures will not be beneficial.

I have no idea why you are including something about ice build up and a glycol chiller included in your response to my post. It is almost as if you may be trying to associate me to some statement I did not make......

I'm glad your DIY chiller is working out.
 
CodeSection said:
Interesting spin and shift to now go from cleaning, rinsing and sanitizing processes to probabilities and potential death. Anyone can compare other scenarios to try to make a point that there are more important risks out there, just as anyone can make up different scenarios where not following standard operation procedures and checklists like a pilot performs can cause problems. At the end of the day, there are riskier things out there but I believe it is pointless to shift this discussion to those items.

I believe the point of this forum is for individuals to learn how to better their processes and brewing. To suggest there are more riskier items faced in life is an unnecessary distraction about individuals contradicting themselves on cleaning and sanitizing procedures or processes. Again, they can do whatever they want. But their methods should not be thought of as a standard when it is obviously not. They have the choice to refine processes if they want.

In your example of not rinsing or sanitizing your butterfly valve after use during fermentation, you do not mention if you will be performing multiple processes with it ie. injecting items or ingredients into the fermenter. As for the driving analogy, I would suggest a new and inexperienced driver tailgating the driver in front of them could learn new refined driving habits to avoid the potential of an accident. It is no different with cleaning and sanitizing methods when brewing. Just because something negatively hasn't occurred, doesn't mean refining ones procedures will not be beneficial.

I have no idea why you are including something about ice build up and a glycol chiller included in your response to my post. It is almost as if you may be trying to associate me to some statement I did not make......

I'm glad your DIY chiller is working out.
Click to expand...

My overall point was just that they may arguably be increasing risk of infection by not inspecting after cleaning/sanitizing. That's a non-existant risk when you put it into perspective with the other risks you take daily without thought. In the grand scheme of brewing practices very minor as well.

I don't see it as an inconsistent application of process at all, since they are indeed sanitizing their butterfly valves. They are just not performing a verification step (risk mitigation) that seems necessary to you, but may not to others. Your whole argument is about perception of risk.

I recently learned from a friend who moved back to Germany that many homebrewers there don't use sanitizer at all, at any stage and infections are relatively rare. So really sanitizing is just an insurance policy.

The chiller part was intended to be totally unrelated, I'm sorry for the sudden segway. I agree it didn't make sense upon rereading.

Edit: also on further reflection, a visual inspection doesn't actually tell you much from a microbial standpoint. If there's a piece of bacteria harboring gunk in there, it doesn't matter much whether it's visible or not. Verifying microbial status visually is basically the same as the 5 second rule for eating food off the floor.
 
Last edited:
TheMadKing said:
My overall point was just that they may arguably be increasing risk of infection by not inspecting after cleaning/sanitizing. That's a non-existant risk when you put it into perspective with the other risks you take daily without thought. In the grand scheme of brewing practices very minor as well.

I don't see it as an inconsistent application of process at all, since they are indeed sanitizing their butterfly valves. They are just not performing a verification step (risk mitigation) that seems necessary to you, but may not to others. Your whole argument is about perception of risk.

I recently learned from a friend who moved back to Germany that many homebrewers there don't use sanitizer at all, at any stage and infections are relatively rare. So really sanitizing is just an insurance policy.

The chiller part was intended to be totally unrelated, I'm sorry for the sudden segway. I agree it didn't make sense upon rereading.

Edit: also on further reflection, a visual inspection doesn't actually tell you much from a microbial standpoint. If there's a piece of bacteria harboring gunk in there, it doesn't matter much whether it's visible or not. Verifying microbial status visually is basically the same as the 5 second rule for eating food off the floor.
Click to expand...

It’s nice to get back to the actual discussion on cleaning, rinsing and sanitizing. The argument about life’s risks really did not have anything to do with best observations and best practices on brewing. Without visualization, there is simply no verification that all areas were rinsed and sanitized. I guess one could close their eyes and spraying in the vicinity, but that wouldn’t help either nor would it be a best practice.

While visual inspection may not see microbial bacteria, it will alert the brewer to large pieces of trub/yeast that are still there in the butterfly valves along with alerting them of areas where their spray application(s) missed areas (dry areas). That is why Starsan is used as it has been established that it is effective within 30 seconds of contact. It is really that simple and that is why it is a best observation and best practice.

I find it odd about the timing of your revelation now of your friend’s comment to you. I would have thought you would have disclosed that before the “shifting” life’s risks post you made. I have no clue if your friend was commenting from his limited personal observations and from his limited discussions with other brewers. Maybe it came from hearsay. I don’t know how he could come to the conclusion that “many” homebrewers in Germany don’t use sanitizer at all without expanding his survey to Germany as a whole. Maybe he meant “many” of the limited brewers he has personally spoken with or heard about. As you are aware, his comment has no authoritative position and is certainly not a best practice.

It can be said brewing has been happening for centuries without Starsan and the use of sanitizers. Today, we have the luxury to have products available that refine our processes. Learning and sharing about best observations and best practices is good for all. People can choose what they want to incorporate in their brewing processes. To cast those improved processes aside to what appears to defend another's practice is motivated by something else and is simply not educating or promoting best observations and best practices.
 
@CodeSection can you describe the procedure you use to rinse the sampling valve to prevent it from gumming up?

I'm ok with spraying star-san into my dump and racking valves after use and before using again, I do combine that with a visual inspection it is right there why not look at it.... FWIW you guys got me googling and I found description on gigayeast site for how to properly santiize a butterfly valve for purpose of collecting a microbiology sample. Attach an elbow and fill with sanitizer, wait 5-10 min, and replace the elbow with a sanitized barb. Same site talked about filling the sample valve with 70% ethanol and flaming it off. But these techniques are about sanitizing the valve for the purpose of collecting a microbiology sample for evaluation where the goal is to prevent the sample from getting contaminated in the collection process. I don't think they really apply to protecting the beer in the tank.
 
CodeSection said:
best observations and best practices.
Click to expand...

In your opinion.

I am not arguing against using sanitizers, nor am I arguing against a quick visual check, there's nothing wrong with it if it's convenient. It's a pretty good idea really.

I am arguing with the notion that a visual check is a "best practice" from a sanitation point of view. It is YOUR practice, but perhaps not BEST practice. It doesn't gain you anything more than a warm fuzzy feeling that you're doing a good job.

I'm perfectly content to take the spray nozzle from my hose, blast out the valve in a circular motion with high pressure water, then spray it thoroughly with Star San. I am willing to trust that this practice works the same as yours, even if I do the whole thing with my eyes closed. Again, this is not about a practice, it's about a feeling.

I'm really not trying to be combative or start an argument (any more than I already have) and I'm sorry for that. I hope you read this in a neutral and calm tone, as that is how it is intended. I just want to make sure we are being clear that you are one brewer sharing YOUR practices that work for YOU, but that doesn't mean they are accepted as BEST practices necessarily.

There are other ways to accomplish the same goal that can provide a warm fuzzy to others, like copious amounts of high pressure water in leu of being able to see into the valve or you could (as Eric has suggested above), fill a capped elbow with PBW solution and hook it up to the valve for a couple hours, then spray it out, then sanitize (I might actually start doing that)
 
eric19312 said:
@CodeSection can you describe the procedure you use to rinse the sampling valve to prevent it from gumming up?

I'm ok with spraying star-san into my dump and racking valves after use and before using again, I do combine that with a visual inspection it is right there why not look at it.... FWIW you guys got me googling and I found description on gigayeast site for how to properly santiize a butterfly valve for purpose of collecting a microbiology sample. Attach an elbow and fill with sanitizer, wait 5-10 min, and replace the elbow with a sanitized barb. Same site talked about filling the sample valve with 70% ethanol and flaming it off. But these techniques are about sanitizing the valve for the purpose of collecting a microbiology sample for evaluation where the goal is to prevent the sample from getting contaminated in the collection process. I don't think they really apply to protecting the beer in the tank.
Click to expand...

If Spike's sampling valve is attached directly to the FV and stays in that position to be used again with the same batch, the only process one can perform is to rinse and sanitize immediately after use by flushing from the bottom of the sampling valve up through the inside of the valve several times with Starsan. If Spike's sampling valve is attached to a butterfly valve as some HBT members have done, it is possible to remove the sampling valve and disassemble it completely to clean, rinse and sanitize in addition to rinsing and sanitizing the butterfly valve it was attached to. Them it can be reattached if needed.

The same processes can be used with other manufacturer's sampling valves. When I use my pigtail sample valve, I completely remove it to clean, rinse and sanitize.
 
TheMadKing said:
In your opinion.

I am not arguing against using sanitizers, nor am I arguing against a quick visual check, there's nothing wrong with it if it's convenient. It's a pretty good idea really.

I am arguing with the notion that a visual check is a "best practice" from a sanitation point of view. It is YOUR practice, but perhaps not BEST practice. It doesn't gain you anything more than a warm fuzzy feeling that you're doing a good job.

I'm perfectly content to take the spray nozzle from my hose, blast out the valve in a circular motion with high pressure water, then spray it thoroughly with Star San. I am willing to trust that this practice works the same as yours, even if I do the whole thing with my eyes closed. Again, this is not about a practice, it's about a feeling.

I'm really not trying to be combative or start an argument (any more than I already have) and I'm sorry for that. I hope you read this in a neutral and calm tone, as that is how it is intended. I just want to make sure we are being clear that you are one brewer sharing YOUR practices that work for YOU, but that doesn't mean they are accepted as BEST practices necessarily.

There are other ways to accomplish the same goal that can provide a warm fuzzy to others, like copious amounts of high pressure water in leu of being able to see into the valve or you could (as Eric has suggested above), fill a capped elbow with PBW solution and hook it up to the valve for a couple hours, then spray it out, then sanitize (I might actually start doing that)
Click to expand...

I'm glad to read you are trying not be argumentative as it sure seemed that way with all the "distractions", examples and revelation you used. The pattern appeared like it especially when you got off the topic. I see you are now going different directions and are now suggesting a different method that @eric19312 posted. It appears you keep shifting to try to prove a point. It really isn't about "fuzzy feelings" at all.

Again, visual inspection has been so well documented as a best practice, but of course you can ignore it. With that said, while I use visual inspection as others do in their procedures and processes, for you to simply imply it is just MY practice that works for ME, really is misleading and does a disservice of best observations and best practices.
 
@eric19312, thanks for the link Microbial Quality Control in the Brewery – GigaYeast, Inc.. It is an interesting read.

From the sounds of it, they describe a process of attaching a 90 degree elbow to a valve and then filling it up with solution when they write "For a standard valve: Attach a 90 degree elbow to the valve so that it can be filled with sanitizer (i.e. PAA or similar). Let the valve soak for 5-10’ and then remove the elbow and attach a sanitized barb for sample collection."

That would mean the butterfly valve would have to be pointed horizontally and the 90 degree elbow pointing up in order to fill the 90 degree elbow up with cleaner, rinse or sanitizer that would reach the entire surface of the butterfly valve.

That procedure would simply not work if the butterfly valve was pointed downward (vertical) to begin with. But maybe someone could somehow adapt their method that would allow the solution to be in full contact with the butterfly valve and gasket for those that have their butterfly valves pointed downward.
 
CodeSection said:
I'm glad to read you are trying not be argumentative as it sure seemed that way with all the "distractions", examples and revelation you used. The pattern appeared like it especially when you got off the topic. I see you are now going different directions and are now suggesting a different method that @eric19312 posted. It appears you keep shifting to try to prove a point. It really isn't about "fuzzy feelings" at all.

Again, visual inspection has been so well documented
Click to expand...

So I used an abstract argument, related an anecdote that seemed relevant in the context, learned new information and thought it was cool and incorporated it. I have never once shifted my position. No need to be sarcastic or insulting
 
CodeSection said:
@eric19312, thanks for the link Microbial Quality Control in the Brewery – GigaYeast, Inc.. It is an interesting read.

From the sounds of it, they describe a process of attaching a 90 degree elbow to a valve and then filling it up with solution when they write "For a standard valve: Attach a 90 degree elbow to the valve so that it can be filled with sanitizer (i.e. PAA or similar). Let the valve soak for 5-10’ and then remove the elbow and attach a sanitized barb for sample collection."

That would mean the butterfly valve would have to be pointed horizontally and the 90 degree elbow pointing up in order to fill the 90 degree elbow up with cleaner, rinse or sanitizer that would reach the entire surface of the butterfly valve.

That procedure would simply not work if the butterfly valve was pointed downward (vertical) to begin with. But maybe someone could somehow adapt their method that would allow the solution to be in full contact with the butterfly valve and gasket for those that have their butterfly valves pointed downward.
Click to expand...

my dump valve is monted vertically. Cone - sight glass - elbow - valve. So another elbow would bend up and I could fill the elbow with sanitizer.
my racking valve is mounted to the cone which is 60 degree angle. I believe a 90 degree elbow would allow one to fill to cover the works but there would be an air pocket and I don't think you could be confident of soaking it. I think if you put a 45 degree elbow between the racking cane and the butterfly valve you could make it work.

I'm ok with a spray bottle of star san myself.
 
TheMadKing said:
So I used an abstract argument, related an anecdote that seemed relevant in the context, learned new information and thought it was cool and incorporated it. I have never once shifted my position. No need to be sarcastic or insulting
Click to expand...

Let’s recap:

You first shift to life’s risks and use an analogy of driving….really did not apply to best observations and best practices;

Then you try to associate a statement to me that I did not make;

Next you shift by citing your friend in Germany that “most” homebrewers in Germany don’t use sanitizer at all….not very accurate nor authoritative….not a best practice either;

In your next shift, you say visual inspection doesn’t tell you much from a microbial standpoint, so who cares if there is a piece of gunk in there that can be seen;

Your next shift and focus dealt with introducing “fuzzy feelings” and emphasizing MY practices that work for ME as if others do not visually inspect their processes;

Then the next shift comes by using @Eric19312’s link to an article. Unfortunately, upon reading the article and quoting it, it doesn’t agree with what you wrote;

Now with your recent post you shift again by saying you were using an abstract argument when you shifted above;

Finally, you shift yet again by saying I was being sarcastic and insulting when I have pointed out your shifts and the problems with those shifts……lol, unbelievable….

Maybe you and others can link an article, a whitepaper, a YouTube video, or a thread that states visual inspection in a cleaning or sanitizing process is not a best practice…..
 
itsnotrequired said:
wait, what are we talking about here? completely removing/sanitizing a valve or sample port on a conical full of beer? maybe i missed something...
Click to expand...

I have a butterfly valve in a vertical position (the bottom dump opens straight down). CodeSection believes it's "industry best practices" to visually inspect a butterfly valve on a conical to make sure there is no trub or possibility of infections after using it (and after rinsing with StarSan), and to do that you need to keep the butterfly valve in a horizontal position (or have a mirror, or a neck that bends 90 degrees I guess).

It deteriorated beyond that to personal insults and attacking other's positions rather than constructive comments surrounding the argument itself.
 
specialkayme said:
I have a butterfly valve in a vertical position (the bottom dump opens straight down). CodeSection believes it's "industry best practices" to visually inspect a butterfly valve on a conical to make sure there is no trub or possibility of infections after using it (and after rinsing with StarSan), and to do that you need to keep the butterfly valve in a horizontal position (or have a mirror, or a neck that bends 90 degrees I guess).

It deteriorated beyond that to personal insults and attacking other's positions rather than constructive comments surrounding the argument itself.
Click to expand...

ok, that's make sense, i thought this discussion was about some type of bizarre double valve situation where a valve was completely removed and deep-cleaned/sanitized after every dump/sample. my setup is as you describe and i just blast the closed bottom dump valve with a decent amount of starsan after a dump, moving the spray head around to cover all the surfaces.
 
itsnotrequired said:
wait, what are we talking about here? completely removing/sanitizing a valve or sample port on a conical full of beer? maybe i missed something...
Click to expand...

itsnotrequired said:
ok, that's make sense, i thought this discussion was about some type of bizarre double valve situation where a valve was completely removed and deep-cleaned/sanitized after every dump/sample. my setup is as you describe and i just blast the closed bottom dump valve with a decent amount of starsan after a dump, moving the spray head around to cover all the surfaces.
Click to expand...

In an attempt to actually answer your question and not provide a contrived or forced answer that did not address it like that what was given by another member, there is no discussion about removing any butterfly valve that is connected to a conical full of beer. Nor is there discussion about removing a sampling valve that is directly attached to the concical.

I did comment that there are those that attach their sampling valve directly to a butterfly valve (racking valve). In this case, they can actually remove the sampling valve to clean and sanitize after each use if they choose.

One such member, @Blasinlow86, attaches the sampling valve to the racking valve on his CF15 since he attaches the carb stone in the sample port location. You can read about that in his post #1248 and see a picture of his setup in his post #1253. Other members with conicals from other manufacturers attach their sampling valve to the racking arm as well. I have been told it was and continues to be a practice brewers use, especially if they have a limited amount of ports in their conical. Thus, it is possible to remove the sampling valve from a racking butterfly valve when the conical is full of beer.

The contrived and forced post above really is not a fair presentation of what is occurring here. The discussion here is about best observations and best practices. A couple of posters simply believe visual inspection be cleaning or sanitizing is not a best practice. Their posts started after my post #2229. But make no mistake about it, discussions deteriorated to personal insults and attacking other’s positions started with one member with post #1927 and continued with his posts #1931 and #1933…….
 
Has anyone tried attaching there conical sample valve to there 1.5 butterfly with wracking arm so your last gravity reading flushes the remaining yeast out of the wracking arm before pressure transfer?
 
CodeSection said:
Let’s recap:

You first shift to life’s risks and use an analogy of driving….really did not apply to best observations and best practices;

Then you try to associate a statement to me that I did not make;

Next you shift by citing your friend in Germany that “most” homebrewers in Germany don’t use sanitizer at all….not very accurate nor authoritative….not a best practice either;

In your next shift, you say visual inspection doesn’t tell you much from a microbial standpoint, so who cares if there is a piece of gunk in there that can be seen;

Your next shift and focus dealt with introducing “fuzzy feelings” and emphasizing MY practices that work for ME as if others do not visually inspect their processes;

Then the next shift comes by using @Eric19312’s link to an article. Unfortunately, upon reading the article and quoting it, it doesn’t agree with what you wrote;

Now with your recent post you shift again by saying you were using an abstract argument when you shifted above;

Finally, you shift yet again by saying I was being sarcastic and insulting when I have pointed out your shifts and the problems with those shifts……lol, unbelievable….

Maybe you and others can link an article, a whitepaper, a YouTube video, or a thread that states visual inspection in a cleaning or sanitizing process is not a best practice…..
Click to expand...
I'm over it friend. Cheers
 
specialkayme said:
Where's the Chris Farley post when we need it . . .
Click to expand...
I'm still laughing.
source.gif
 
This is/was a great thread of information, I’ve always come on here to learn new things since I’m not really handy.
My question, I’m sure it’s been done but just wondering peoples procedures. Adding fruit in secondary in a CF10? Do you add it to the conical after dumping your yeast? Do you transfer the beer to a different vessel to add fruit? Just wondering some best practices using the conical and doing a late fruit addition.

Cheers!
 
Looking for some advice on process surrounding the CF5 conical. I have used the conical (CF5) 4 times. The last beer was a NEIPA and had a bunch of issues getting the beer from the conical to keg. I use pressure to transfer per the spike video on youtube.

Background on the beer I brewed: it was a 5 gallon batch with two dry hop additions: one of 3 ounces the second of 5 ounces. Fermented at 66*F raised to 70*F to finish out. I cold crashed the beer for 36 hours at 38*F.

Here are some of the issues I am having:
  • Used the bottom 2" port to get as much trub out before trying get gravity or move the beer. Not much green hop trub came out before beer started to empty out.
  • The sample valve is not "working". I am not able to get samples for my last two beers as gravity and the angle of the port bring trub into that port clogging it and making it useless. Is there a way around this or is this just the laws of physics at work? Just seems wasteful at this point.
  • I turned the racking port slightly down and began to rack the beer. Barely any moved before the CO2 being forced out of the keg ran dry. It turned out that the liquid disconnect was clogged. Took it apart, cleaned, and repeated...many, many, many times. It took over an hour to get the beer to move w/out clogging the disconnect. How can I avoid this in the future? Is this just a combination of the trub not exiting an overall large dry hop addition? Is there a limit to the amount of dry hopping that can/should be done in the conical? Etc?
One of the main reasons I purchased this conical was to do closed loop transfers for NEIPAs. If this is going to be my experience each time, I will not be satisfied. Appreciate feedback on how to migiate these issues in the future.
 
oach said:
Looking for some advice on process surrounding the CF5 conical. I have used the conical (CF5) 4 times. The last beer was a NEIPA and had a bunch of issues getting the beer from the conical to keg. I use pressure to transfer per the spike video on youtube.

Background on the beer I brewed: it was a 5 gallon batch with two dry hop additions: one of 3 ounces the second of 5 ounces. Fermented at 66*F raised to 70*F to finish out. I cold crashed the beer for 36 hours at 38*F.

Here are some of the issues I am having:
  • Used the bottom 2" port to get as much trub out before trying get gravity or move the beer. Not much green hop trub came out before beer started to empty out.
  • The sample valve is not "working". I am not able to get samples for my last two beers as gravity and the angle of the port bring trub into that port clogging it and making it useless. Is there a way around this or is this just the laws of physics at work? Just seems wasteful at this point.
  • I turned the racking port slightly down and began to rack the beer. Barely any moved before the CO2 being forced out of the keg ran dry. It turned out that the liquid disconnect was clogged. Took it apart, cleaned, and repeated...many, many, many times. It took over an hour to get the beer to move w/out clogging the disconnect. How can I avoid this in the future? Is this just a combination of the trub not exiting an overall large dry hop addition? Is there a limit to the amount of dry hopping that can/should be done in the conical? Etc?
One of the main reasons I purchased this conical was to do closed loop transfers for NEIPAs. If this is going to be my experience each time, I will not be satisfied. Appreciate feedback on how to migiate these issues in the future.
Click to expand...

certain hop/yeast combinations seem to stick to the sides on the conical more than others. i have a cf10 and just started crashing an ipa today, 5 ounces dry hop. only a little stuff came out on the first dump. fast forward an hour, more stuff. another hour, more stuff, it is a process. i usually dump until i can just see clear beer in the sight glass (my sight glass is directly below the conical in the vertical position). you have 8 oz in a 5 gal bunch, that is a ton of hops.

racking arm is a must but i leave mine straight down the entire time, hence the process of getting clear beer down to the sight glass. before i rack, i use one of those nifty double-ended male ball lock coupler that bobby sells to run the first bit of beer out into a bucket. this is where i can tell if i have any clogging issues. way easier to mess with that than pulling dip tubes off the keg, ruining the nice co2 filled keg, etc. once beer runs clear, i remove the coupler and connect to the keg for filling. process is also nice for removing any trub that made its way into the racking arm.

sample port inlet does face down so the more hops you dump in, the more likely they will find their way into the port. i've had to open it up really far before, so far i thought i was going to twist it right off. clog clears and then i have to close it like a madman before it overfills the graduated cylinder.
 
oach said:
Looking for some advice on process surrounding the CF5 conical. I have used the conical (CF5) 4 times. The last beer was a NEIPA and had a bunch of issues getting the beer from the conical to keg. I use pressure to transfer per the spike video on youtube.

Background on the beer I brewed: it was a 5 gallon batch with two dry hop additions: one of 3 ounces the second of 5 ounces. Fermented at 66*F raised to 70*F to finish out. I cold crashed the beer for 36 hours at 38*F.

Here are some of the issues I am having:
  • Used the bottom 2" port to get as much trub out before trying get gravity or move the beer. Not much green hop trub came out before beer started to empty out.
  • The sample valve is not "working". I am not able to get samples for my last two beers as gravity and the angle of the port bring trub into that port clogging it and making it useless. Is there a way around this or is this just the laws of physics at work? Just seems wasteful at this point.
  • I turned the racking port slightly down and began to rack the beer. Barely any moved before the CO2 being forced out of the keg ran dry. It turned out that the liquid disconnect was clogged. Took it apart, cleaned, and repeated...many, many, many times. It took over an hour to get the beer to move w/out clogging the disconnect. How can I avoid this in the future? Is this just a combination of the trub not exiting an overall large dry hop addition? Is there a limit to the amount of dry hopping that can/should be done in the conical? Etc?
One of the main reasons I purchased this conical was to do closed loop transfers for NEIPAs. If this is going to be my experience each time, I will not be satisfied. Appreciate feedback on how to migiate these issues in the future.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you have a ton of solid particles in suspension. This is just a guess and I have no experience yet, but maybe dumping trub right before transferring is a bad idea? Maybe it's better to either not dump, or to cold crash, dump, then wait a few hours/overnight so that anything the dump has stirred up can settle. Just speculation though


SFC Rudy said:
Just saying, you do not need a bunch of shiny **** to make great beer.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's why 100% of professional breweries use giant plastic buckets instead of shiny ****... Oh wait 😉
 
oach said:
Looking for some advice on process surrounding the CF5 conical. I have used the conical (CF5) 4 times. The last beer was a NEIPA and had a bunch of issues getting the beer from the conical to keg. I use pressure to transfer per the spike video on youtube.

Background on the beer I brewed: it was a 5 gallon batch with two dry hop additions: one of 3 ounces the second of 5 ounces. Fermented at 66*F raised to 70*F to finish out. I cold crashed the beer for 36 hours at 38*F.

Here are some of the issues I am having:
  • Used the bottom 2" port to get as much trub out before trying get gravity or move the beer. Not much green hop trub came out before beer started to empty out.
  • The sample valve is not "working". I am not able to get samples for my last two beers as gravity and the angle of the port bring trub into that port clogging it and making it useless. Is there a way around this or is this just the laws of physics at work? Just seems wasteful at this point.
  • I turned the racking port slightly down and began to rack the beer. Barely any moved before the CO2 being forced out of the keg ran dry. It turned out that the liquid disconnect was clogged. Took it apart, cleaned, and repeated...many, many, many times. It took over an hour to get the beer to move w/out clogging the disconnect. How can I avoid this in the future? Is this just a combination of the trub not exiting an overall large dry hop addition? Is there a limit to the amount of dry hopping that can/should be done in the conical? Etc?
One of the main reasons I purchased this conical was to do closed loop transfers for NEIPAs. If this is going to be my experience each time, I will not be satisfied. Appreciate feedback on how to migiate these issues in the future.
Click to expand...

Seems that everyone that makes hoppy beers starts out with this problem. The good news is it does get better over time as you gain experience with the equipment.

8oz in 5 gallons is a ton of hops. Was it really a 5 gallon batch or was it designed to yield 5 gallons? I'm doing up to a pound in a CF15 so not as much as you are attempting. But I try to start with 17.5 gallons plus in the fermentor in order to get close to 15 gallons into the kegs. On a CF5 I'd probably design the batch to start with 6.5 gallons in the fermentor.

You must get out of the hop trub to achieve a closed transfer. It sounds like some hops got past your disconnect and likely clogged the poppet in your beer out post too. You are kinda lucky if you got away with not having to take that apart to get the beer to flow as if you had the whole effort of doing a closed transfer is pretty well wasted.

You can get out of the hop trub with the racking arm or by dumping the trub. I tend to do multiple small dumps until I see beer in sight glass some time after my last dump and then do my transfer with the racking arm in down position. In retrospect I think adding the sight glass really helped me improve my trub dumping technique or perhaps just the extra plumbing makes you less likely to blow through the cone.

I cold crash lower than 38. Don't know if that makes a differece but I aim for 24-48 hours at 30F or lower.

You are not moving the fermentor after last dump and before transfer are you? When you clean it out you are going to see how much goo remains in the cone after complete dumping. It's a bunch. Clogged my CIP pump first time I tried cleaning without initial hose rinse. If you dump and then move the fermentor you are likely resuspending some of the stuff that was sticking to the cone. Be very gentle with that stuff.

The other thing you mention is the sample port not working. It's not the angle of the port....these work fine for other people. However your sample port is at 1.2 gallons vs 2.9 gallons on the CF10 and CF15. I'd not be surprised if you do have more than a gallon of trub in there. Get the trub out and the sample port will work. Maybe add a bit of head pressure but if you do be careful of the potential mess.
 
oach said:
Used the bottom 2" port to get as much trub out before trying get gravity or move the beer. Not much green hop trub came out before beer started to empty out.
Click to expand...

Can you explain your process a little further?

If you aren't getting much hop trub, your dump may not be working quite right. If you open the dump valve quickly, or wide, the beer may channel around the trub, and you'll pull more beer than trub. Others have had success with opening the bottom dump one click at max.
 
specialkayme said:
Can you explain your process a little further?

If you aren't getting much hop trub, your dump may not be working quite right. If you open the dump valve quickly, or wide, the beer may channel around the trub, and you'll pull more beer than trub. Others have had success with opening the bottom dump one click at max.
Click to expand...

Good points. You need a barb fitting and a hose on your dump valve. I use a 1/2" silicone hose about 2 feet long. You squeeze the hose while opening the valve to further control flow rate. You want it coming out like toothpaste or at least cake batter. Once it starts getting thin/liquidy you need to stop and let it rest for a while.
 
eric19312 said:
Seems that everyone that makes hoppy beers starts out with this problem. The good news is it does get better over time as you gain experience with the equipment.

8oz in 5 gallons is a ton of hops. Was it really a 5 gallon batch or was it designed to yield 5 gallons? I'm doing up to a pound in a CF15 so not as much as you are attempting. But I try to start with 17.5 gallons plus in the fermentor in order to get close to 15 gallons into the kegs. On a CF5 I'd probably design the batch to start with 6.5 gallons in the fermentor.

You must get out of the hop trub to achieve a closed transfer. It sounds like some hops got past your disconnect and likely clogged the poppet in your beer out post too. You are kinda lucky if you got away with not having to take that apart to get the beer to flow as if you had the whole effort of doing a closed transfer is pretty well wasted.

You can get out of the hop trub with the racking arm or by dumping the trub. I tend to do multiple small dumps until I see beer in sight glass some time after my last dump and then do my transfer with the racking arm in down position. In retrospect I think adding the sight glass really helped me improve my trub dumping technique or perhaps just the extra plumbing makes you less likely to blow through the cone.

I cold crash lower than 38. Don't know if that makes a differece but I aim for 24-48 hours at 30F or lower.

You are not moving the fermentor after last dump and before transfer are you? When you clean it out you are going to see how much goo remains in the cone after complete dumping. It's a bunch. Clogged my CIP pump first time I tried cleaning without initial hose rinse. If you dump and then move the fermentor you are likely resuspending some of the stuff that was sticking to the cone. Be very gentle with that stuff.

The other thing you mention is the sample port not working. It's not the angle of the port....these work fine for other people. However your sample port is at 1.2 gallons vs 2.9 gallons on the CF10 and CF15. I'd not be surprised if you do have more than a gallon of trub in there. Get the trub out and the sample port will work. Maybe add a bit of head pressure but if you do be careful of the potential mess.
Click to expand...

This made me think about heavy dry hops in my old carboys and how the dryhops would float until I swirled the fermenter. I wonder if something like this is happening, and it would be a good practice to give the CF a swirl, or hit it with some CO2 bubbles to cause any floating dryhops to sink before/during cold crashing?
 
Bad Bubba said:
That is actually not true. I have given many hour long seminars to my wife on the importance of shiny stuff for beer making. There is no back tracking now!
Click to expand...

That reminds me of the lament I once heard from a fellow home brewer, tragically trapped in the "constant upgrade, must have the latest and greatest shiny new object" vortex:

"My greatest fear in home brewing is that one day I'll die and my wife will sell all my equipment to someone for the same price I told her it cost me."

Brooo Brother
That person.
 
The first thing I did before every fermenting a beer in my CF15 was to purchase an additional butter fly valve which I installed in line with the sampling port, this allows me to keep gunk out of the port as well as be able to swap stuff out and not leave them to the elements inside.

I am currently crashing my first beer in it, an Oktoberfest and I am noticing a 5 degree difference between what the calibrated Tilt hydrometer (colder) and the thermowell is reading with a inkbird in it. Anyone else notice a difference between the thermowell reading and actual temp?
 

Similar threads

D
Gauge oil leak in Spike All-in-one PRV?
Replies
2
Views
700
DavidWood2115
D
M
For Sale Complete homebrew system - HERMS, conical, temp controlled.. Denver metro
Replies
1
Views
332
metaltim
M
SBENCIV
iSpindel Review
Replies
8
Views
295
redrocker652002
R
Iowa Brewer
Cacao Nibs in Conical: Even Flavor Distribution?
Replies
0
Views
602
Iowa Brewer
Iowa Brewer
tommy24a
Spike 30 Conical question
Replies
5
Views
1K
Golddiggie
Golddiggie
Williams Brewing 300

Latest posts

Back
Top