brownsbrews
Well-Known Member
Well here is my first brew about 6 days into fermentation. This is my sat fermenter from my gravity readings. Its already starting to look awesome :fro::rockin: party time soon.
Beer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter brownsbrews
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
That "satellite fermenter" idea 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.
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
)
Please don't fear taking a real hydro sample of your beer, don't ever go by a satellite grav reading.....
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.
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
)Please don't fear taking a real hydro sample of your beer, don't ever go by a satellite grav reading.....
HoppyDaze
Well-Known Member
edit: what he said ^^^
That shouldn't be true. At equal temperatures, the rate of fermentation
will depend upon the concentration of sugar and yeast in solution. The
only way the satellite would ferment faster is if you put a lot more yeast
into solution.
The problem with the satellite as I see it is if you put the sample into
the satellite before fermentation has begun, because the small satellite
will cool a lot faster, and so the fermentation may lag behind the batch.
(I'm assuming you are putting the fermentation into a temperature
controlled fridge or swamp cooler). I would wait until the primary
fermentation has subsided before putting anything into the satellite.
Ray
OP
OP
brownsbrews
Well-Known Member
i dont go by what the sat says i am just admiring what my beer looks like. Its more of being able to watch my beer clear up and see what it looks like. I and gonna start taking reading here soon cause i am getting close to my week mark so that one is going to get dumped and i am gonna take reading. But there is no clear way to do it. Do you use the wine theif and take some out put it in the tube and see what the reading is then dump it back in the bucket?
danon104
Member
Don't dump it back in!!!!!!! That raises your chance of infection by quite a bit, besides, then you don't get to taste it
OP
OP
brownsbrews
Well-Known Member
LoL thanks danon i didnt think about that point
BendBrewer
Well-Known Member
Looking good!
It maybe "shouldn't be true," in your mind, but it is. It's the same reason a pint or a bomber will take longer to carb up than a 12 ouncer. That sample will ferment out in a day or two, tops.
OP
OP
brownsbrews
Well-Known Member
i still see the fermentation going on inside of there.
northernlad
Well-Known Member
Go ahead and be excited. I won't preach at you.
OP
OP
brownsbrews
Well-Known Member
Thanks north
I've never noticed any such difference in carbonation times for
different bottles, they all take about a week.
If what you said were true, you could separate your brew into 1/2
ounce portions, and the entire fermentation would be complete in
1 hour, then you could recombine.
Ray
Yes. And then we'd be answering questions like, "My beer has been in the primary for almost a half hour, but it still tastes like crap! Is it ruined?"
kryolla
Well-Known Member
I got a hydro sample at home that was pulled for OG reading but I left it out and it turned really clear to cloudy and started seeing bubbles on top maybe a wild yeast infected it or maybe some bacteria so I told my wife to leave it alone and I'll see how it tastes this weekend , she thought that was gross. lol
Justibone
Well-Known Member
Think in three dimensions. It will become more clear.
Also, think in terms of geometric or exponential increase. Populations in culture (which beer is, it's a yeast culture) grow on a sigmoid curve. They double at a fairly constant rate, continuously doubling period by period. Then, for lack of nutrient or mineral or whatever reason, they hit the linear phase of their sigmoid growth curve. That is to say, they are no longer exponential. This is the time of nutritional competition, i.e., time to use up the sugars and make alcohol, because the fastest respirators will have evolutionary advantage when nutrients are a limiting reagent.
In the exponential portion, sugars are in extreme excess -- there are way more fermentables than there are yeast. That's why we give them oxygen, so that they can reproduce at that time. Once they reach a critical population (which may be based largely on environmental factors) they will slow down reproduction and concentrate on pooping out EtOH and farting out CO2.
Needless to say, the three dimensional volume of a test tube or graduated cylinder is a very different environment than a bucket. The yeast in the test tube will hit the linear phase faster (see the "small islands" explanation in the link below), and thus they will have fiercer competition for fermentables. While you couldn't necessarily split an entire wort batch of 5 gallons into 0.5 oz. containers and finish fermentation in an hour, you could definitely finish quicker than the typical 3 days to a week. It's just danged inconvenient, is all. (1280 containers to sanitize?? OMG!!)
A decent explanation - http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Populations2.html
So, since the "sat" is a "smaller island", the yeast will be forced into competition sooner. Therefore, the smaller "sat" brew should be complete before the larger, main brew.
A simple experiment is possible, though: just make a "sat" and test both with the hydrometer twice a day for a week... that should give enough data points to make a nice graph for ever'body to look at. :fro:
If you were a woman I think I'd marry you. :rockin:
Thanks for the great explanation. I think even a doubter like above could understand it.
I've been doing this enough years to have observed it happening and have answered probably 100 threads where new brewers have had their 12 ouncers done at least a week if not more than the larger bottles.
Same with knowing and understanding why the satellites are faulty for timing, there's been plenty of threads here where folks have racked their beer to secondary based only on the satellite's behavior and ended up with krausen, or worse, bottled and posted about bottle bombs.
Since I enter contests, and often also bottle in pints, bombers or even champagne bottles, I always bottle at least a sixer of not two in 12 ounce unmarked bottles for contests. And I've never ONCE had a larger bottle finished before the 12 ouncers.
remilard
Well-Known Member
Where is the part where you explain why 1 billion cells in 100 mL reproduce or ferment faster than 200 billion cells in 20 Liters?
A lot of homebrewers claim week long ale ferments. Nearly every 100 barrel commercial ale ferment is under 5 days. Do small islands explain that?
Justibone
Well-Known Member
Initial reproduction should be at similar rates. The "smaller island" means that the yeast spend less time in the reproductive, i.e. exponential, growth phase, and therefore hit the respirational, i.e. linear, growth phase at an earlier time. That is to say, intrapopulational biochemical signals likely provoke competitional behaviors sooner in a smaller island. In an r-strategem species, the early respirators are the winners... hence, competition.
Rats eat their own babies; yeast, they make booze. Yay yeast!
Comparing homebrew equipment to commercial macrobrewery equipment is like comparing my sister's '97 Taurus to NASCAR... sorry, but it just sounds a little bit not-quite-right, you know?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer#Brewing
http://www.wikihow.com/Brew-Commercial-Beer
http://www.roadshow.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50 (Continuous Fermentation)
Most of us probably like homebrew more than commercial brew, but to compare the processes, and to expect that what factories producing millions of liters of beer per year would be the same as an "Ale Pail", is just a little bit unrealistic.
Maybe I'm underestimating typical "sat" homebrewer set-up, I don't know... but I do know that with continuous flow brewing methods the "small islands" hypothesis would play no part whatsoever, since continuous flow could not be considered any type of "island" at all. Other, smaller breweries do not do continuous flow, and I guess in their case I'd have to ask about relative volumes, i.e., is the ratio of their sat (maybe 5 gal for 200 gal tank) higher than a ratio you suggested (0.1 L for 23 L). If you have specifics, I'd be glad to try the math and also talk to a renowned ethanol expert two buildings over.
Anyways, if anyone likes satellites, and if they are working for whomever, then I say go ahead and do it. Tell biochemistry and homebrew experience to take a flying leap... and if that leap is into a lake of beer, then I'm sure me and Rev would thank you for it!
RDWHAHB.
remilard
Well-Known Member
So handwaving is all you have right? You actually have no reason to think 20 L is different enough from 100 mL to make a material difference. And you seem to be relying on observations of animals in environments where they number many orders of magnitude lower than yeast in an a single mL of wort.
I hear that a lot and I've learned that I'll never get an answer to this question, but why is commercial equipment different from homebrewing equipment? Tank geometry is similar. Commercial brewers do separate from the yeast earlier, but a homebrewer could do that and some do (and they get yelled at if they admit to it). The primary difference is the pressure existing at a given point in the column of beer but how does a 5 barrel pub system differ from a 15 gallon homebrew conical fermenter? Why should I believe that fermentation is somehow slowest at 20-50L and faster in smaller and larger batches?
I do have some specifics for you if you want to run the numbers and tell me how these two scenarios are fundamentally different. I suspect you'll never come back with the explanation, but I'll give you a chance to impress.
Let's consider a 100 mL (roughly the volume of a hydrometer test tube I would guess) fermenting alongside a 20 L carboy. The height of the column in the tube is probably around half of the height of the column in the carboy.
Now consider Free State Brewing Company in Lawrence, KS. They have 15 barrel tanks. The height of the column of liquid is around 12 feet I would guess. Their satellite is the same height and is around 5 gallons in volume (90:1 vs 200:1 in the example above). Their experience, over thousands of batches, is that the satellite informs them about what is going on in the tank and also about whether or not the characteristics of their yeast are changing and they should stop repitching it.
I am entertaining any explanations of why one works and the other doesn't that do not consist entirely of hand waving and discussions of why 1000 lemurs on an island are different than 4 lemurs on an island.
Justibone
Well-Known Member
I suggested an experiment -- you're free to try it. Revvy has already reported his results, and I trust him. The scientific word for forming a crude hypothesis from observed results is not "handwaving", but if you want to call it "handwaving" I'm certainly not going to waste time arguing with you.
Excellent evidence that you are, perhaps, asking the wrong people?
Pub systems may be comparable to homebrewer gear, in some ways... but macrobreweries are definitively *not*. Did you read the third link, about continuous fermentation? Do you do *that* for your homebrew?
Secondly, don't believe it -- prove it. Revvy has said what he said, now the scientific thing would be to do your own experiment to prove him wrong. Unless you don't want to be proven wrong...
Then again, I don't drink your beer, so I really don't give a hot darn.
You seem to be under the impression that the compressive force on the satellite is significant. Based on the fact that the brewers use a satellite of the same height as the fermentor, I am intrigued by this idea. Please state why you feel pressure is significant for yeast that top-brew (ale, you said?), and furthermore, why a 14 inch tall column could be said to replicate a 28 inch tall column accurately. I'm open to convincing here -- make your case, sir!
You state that the satellite informs them about what is going on in the tank and whether they should stop repitching their yeast... but you said nothing about fermentation time. Wasn't that the original objection, about fermentation *timing*? Didn't Revvy say specifically that the finish gravity (and presumably certain other characteristics) would be identical, but the *timing* would be different? You did not state that they use the satellite for timing, and if they don't, this entire debate is pretty much moot, correct?
Unless you mistated yourself, perhaps?
Amusing, however you seem to have missed the point; it's not the number of lemurs, but rather the carrying capacity (k) of the environment. The value k relates to a large number of environmental variables, not the least of which would be fermentables, oxygen, mineral availability and temperature. Using the same wort for the sat and the main batch would control for 3/4 of those variables -- but other variables matter as well. (You also mentioned pressure, remember.)
Furthermore, the small island hypothesis does not apply only to large animals -- or even just to animals. Read a slight bit more on that page, you'll see that the same population dynamics apply to bacteria in liquid culture, which, I'm certain you'll concede, replicate yeast life-cycles much more closely than do lemurs or songbirds or fancy, magical unicorn-pandas.
But in the end, wouldn't it be more fun to *prove* me wrong, than for the two of us to sit here and just take potshots at each other? Try it. Let us know what you find. (My brew supplies budget is exhausted for the month... but I look forward to trying next month.)
Me, I don't care that much. It's just fun to debate you.
Justibone
Well-Known Member
In scientific parlance, "handwaving" = fightin' words!
This is actually pretty nasty already, by scientist standards.
remilard
Well-Known Member
I have had a number of satellite fermentations finish in the same time as the main fermentation. So I have performed the experiment.
Believe me, I have plenty of evidence that I shouldn't ask questions here if I want a valuable answer. My point in asking questions is to challenge incorrect statements made by unaccomplished brewers who pretend to be experts online.
Nobody is talking about macro brewers other than you.
As per above, I have a small number of anecdotes. I also have, by proxy, a very large number of anecdotes from commercial brewers. I therefore have the most anecdotes and you seem to put a lot of weight on those. Do I win?
I don't think pressure matters in the two examples I cited. I just pointed out that as the only material difference so nobody could feel special by pointing it out to me.
Timing and other important characteristics are the same. That is why it is a useful proxy.
I don't suppose you care to list the variables that are different in different volumes of identical inoculated wort? Every variable you list above should be the same (nutrition, oxygen, temperature). I would really like for those variables to explain why 5 gallons ferments slower than an ounce but 100 gallons ferments at the same pace or faster than 5 gallons. That may be asking too much.
Me, I don't care that much. It's just fun to debate you.
I care. Some people are foolish enough to rely on what they read here.
craigd
Well-Known Member
ahh! The sweet, sweet smell of bitter acrimony... I'm not sure why we can't disagree without insults. It doesn't really make us appealing to the new folks.
Justibone
Well-Known Member
Sadly, you don't have gravity measurements, so you can't offer definitive proof. You also don't seem to want this definitive proof, so what does that tell me?
[emphasis mine]
Then you have no point being here at all. You don't need anyone else's input, that's fine, I respect that. Go about your day, do your own thing, let your freak flag fly. But you come here to correct other people because you *think* you know more than them? You're actually a little bit pathetic. Sorry. Truth hurts.
OUT OF SEQUENCE, QUOTED HERE INSTEAD:
I see. You are more special because you care. You're right, you win, you're a better person.
100 barrel system = 31.5 * 100 = 31500 gallons.
5 days to make ale, 365/5 = 73 fermentations.
73*31500 = 2,299,500 gallons per year, or 24M+ bottles of beer?
That's not a macrobrewery?
Those were your numbers.
Sure, I'll take your word. When I run my experiment next month, and publish the results here, if the satellite finishes faster than the main brew can I count on you to retract your anecdotes?
Wow, you have friends who brew beer professionally??? Excuse me, you might not hear my voice from down here, it's kind of muffled because I'm kissing the magical feet that have the privilege of carrying your magnificent body to every blessed and heavenly location that enjoys the unimaginable bliss of your celestial presence.
No one feels special, no, no one here feels special at all.
You did not mention timing specifically. Are you CYAing now? Lucky for you, I don't care enough to bother checking. So I'll go with that, and we'll just discuss the homebrew scenario, i.e., a satellite of .1 L and half the column height of the main brew.
Boring. Why don't I count ceiling tiles? How am I supposed to list supposed differences in a hypothetical situation? It makes a lot more sense for me to put up (and you to shut up, maybe?) until I run my experiment in a couple of weeks. I can secure a suitable cylinder and fermentor -- probably glass -- and if I can find a proper airlock for the sat then we'll be good to go.
Wait and see! Data always "outs" assumptions.
Justibone
Well-Known Member
Just ignore Remmy, he's our resident tool, I mean troll. he really doesn't care about the answer, or even about his fellow brewers on here. His only real reason for posting on this thread was because I did, and he likes to stalk me (really creepy if you ask me,) and he keeps thinking he's going to catch me in his eyes "wrong" about something (he doesn't get that I'm wrong about a lot of stuff, just usually NOT something I've answered for new brewers 10,000 times before, and would have been called on probably nicely, by others more experienced than me, LOOOONG before he decide to snark.) I think it makes him feel all "tingly" down there I'm sure.
He can't even disagree civilly, he always has to be snarky. I don't think it's in his genes to be nice. He doesn't realize he'd have more friends that way. Especially on here.
His favorite argument no matter what is to cite what the commercial brewers do. He still can't grasp that there are many differences in brewing 5 gallons as opposed to 5bbl in a commercial brewery where bookoo bucks are on the line...WHere breweries are temp controlled beter than the space shuttle, and where MORE than enough yeast is pitched. Hell even Jamil and John Palmer acknowledge that you can't always apply one set of brewing "rules" to homebrewing that you might to commercial sized endeavors.
Best bet is just not to feed the troll anymore...
He doesn't really care, so neither should we.
He can't even disagree civilly, he always has to be snarky. I don't think it's in his genes to be nice. He doesn't realize he'd have more friends that way. Especially on here.
His favorite argument no matter what is to cite what the commercial brewers do. He still can't grasp that there are many differences in brewing 5 gallons as opposed to 5bbl in a commercial brewery where bookoo bucks are on the line...WHere breweries are temp controlled beter than the space shuttle, and where MORE than enough yeast is pitched. Hell even Jamil and John Palmer acknowledge that you can't always apply one set of brewing "rules" to homebrewing that you might to commercial sized endeavors.
Best bet is just not to feed the troll anymore...
He doesn't really care, so neither should we.
Bach7210
Well-Known Member
But, it did help to kill 20 minutes of a slow work day, Revvy. And for that gentlemen, I thank you.
Justibone
Well-Known Member
But, it did help to kill 20 minutes of a slow work day, Revvy. And for that gentlemen, I thank you.
You're welcome!
Troll he may be, but when I run the experiment I'll open a new thread. And if I'm wrong, I'll cop to it!
You're welcome!
Troll he may be, but when I run the experiment I'll open a new thread. And if I'm wrong, I'll cop to it!
Just wanted to say that I feel it is important to question our methods and finding evidence to support them is great. Kudos to you for conducting your experiment.
If someone actually just went around questioning things and asking for data to support, it could very well be useful as we could disprove things (like needing a secondary, etc). Following Revvy around and questioning everything he says and then keep questioning even when evidence is presented and experiments are going to be conducted, is the opposite of useful.
Am I mistaken to call the experiment to be conducted a 'fast ferment test'? I had never heard the term satellite fermenter until today. Kaiser loves em, and by the name, it seems to support Justibone's conclusions.
http://www.braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Fast_Ferment_Test
remilard
Well-Known Member
A fast ferment test is different in that the sample is inoculated at a much higher rate than normal. That will ferment faster and that is the whole point of doing it, to establish a residual extract floor in advance. Actually if Justibone and Revvy are correct there is no point for Kaiser or other FFT users to over inoculate the wort as the test would be necessarily fast due to its small size. So somebody other than me is an idiot because either you need to over inoculate or you don't to get a faster ferment. I hope that it turns out that Kai is the idiot as then I would be in good company.
Justibone
Well-Known Member
I think "fast ferment" is closer to the second half of continuous flow, because all the yeast needed (or nearly all) are already in solution. Essentially, you start at the linear phase of the sigmoid growth curve.
I'm going to call my test "volumetric effect on the rate of ethanol production in beer". That will probably be the thread name.
It would be awesome to do some "turbo trials", though... make 3.5% ABV beer as absolutely fast as possible. (It would taste like crap, I bet.) I'm sure someone has, but if you don't experiment with this hobby then you're not having enough fun!
That web page has nothing on it that is relevant to issue of whether
or not small fermentations ferment faster than large ones.
The issue is the rate of a chemical reaction, which is concentration
dependent, not container dependent. There is no "competition" in
the sense of animals fighting each other. The experiments and the
math for this were worked out at the end of the 19th century.
What you are claiming essentially is that putting a wall around a
volume of wort/yeast causes the rate of the reaction to increase,
which is absurd. A five gallon container of wort can be thought
of as many smaller 1 cup volumes, whether there is a wall around
those volumes or not. Obviously, the individual cups in the
carboy don't ferment faster. Just as obviously, it doesn't take
a year for a Budweiser-sized batch to ferment.
Ray
Boerderij_Kabouter
Well-Known Member
I hate to jump onto a burning ship... but I have the unpleasant need to.
I agree with remilard. The arguments that a satellite will ferment differently do not apply 1:1. I have done a few satellite ferments, didn't do much for me, but they were very close to the original batch.
I have also done "fast ferment tests" which is what it sounds like our fair Reverend and the stag are talking about. I could be wrong.
In a FFT, you load the small sample with a huge amount of yeast and allow it to finish very quickly (2-3 days) to test the attenuation. This is obviously not a gauge of the actual fermentation but is instead just a tool to test the attenuation limit of the wort you brewed.
The pressure differences between a test tube and our fermenters is negligible. 100 BBL fermenter, not so much. That size fermenter will significantly affect the flavor of the beer. Additionally, many believe the shape factor of a fermenter affects the flavor of beers (me being one of them).
However, the flavor of a beer due to shape is often attributed to esters and other compounds forming in the corners etc... Anyway, pressure doesn't matter.
I understand the "small island" theory. However, the size of the island is relative. If you inoculate your wort, allow proper distribution of the yeast, then draw off your satellite fermentation volume, the relative size of the "islands" is the same, which is the important factor.
To analogize, a pack of voracious velocorapters would need a larger island that two voracious velocorapters. It comes down to square feet (or mL) to organism. Once proper mixing has occurred, the end volume should have little effect on the speed of the ferment.
This is what I have seen, and I agree with remilard that it makes no sense when you translate it to larger MICRO brewery sized batches.
No one here generally talks about macro-style brewing. That is a very different animal. When we say "big boys" or similar it mean microbreweries.
I can run this experiment for fun on the next brew I do.
In the end it all goes back to proper pitching rates, oxygen, nutrients, and ferment temps. The last two batches I had fully attenuated in 3 days... I doubt my satellite would even make it that fast.
Bottle conditioning is a different animal that an open ferment (that is to say without pressure). I do not think that is a fair comparison.
I agree with remilard. The arguments that a satellite will ferment differently do not apply 1:1. I have done a few satellite ferments, didn't do much for me, but they were very close to the original batch.
I have also done "fast ferment tests" which is what it sounds like our fair Reverend and the stag are talking about. I could be wrong.
In a FFT, you load the small sample with a huge amount of yeast and allow it to finish very quickly (2-3 days) to test the attenuation. This is obviously not a gauge of the actual fermentation but is instead just a tool to test the attenuation limit of the wort you brewed.
The pressure differences between a test tube and our fermenters is negligible. 100 BBL fermenter, not so much. That size fermenter will significantly affect the flavor of the beer. Additionally, many believe the shape factor of a fermenter affects the flavor of beers (me being one of them).
However, the flavor of a beer due to shape is often attributed to esters and other compounds forming in the corners etc... Anyway, pressure doesn't matter.
I understand the "small island" theory. However, the size of the island is relative. If you inoculate your wort, allow proper distribution of the yeast, then draw off your satellite fermentation volume, the relative size of the "islands" is the same, which is the important factor.
To analogize, a pack of voracious velocorapters would need a larger island that two voracious velocorapters. It comes down to square feet (or mL) to organism. Once proper mixing has occurred, the end volume should have little effect on the speed of the ferment.
This is what I have seen, and I agree with remilard that it makes no sense when you translate it to larger MICRO brewery sized batches.
No one here generally talks about macro-style brewing. That is a very different animal. When we say "big boys" or similar it mean microbreweries.
I can run this experiment for fun on the next brew I do.
In the end it all goes back to proper pitching rates, oxygen, nutrients, and ferment temps. The last two batches I had fully attenuated in 3 days... I doubt my satellite would even make it that fast.
Bottle conditioning is a different animal that an open ferment (that is to say without pressure). I do not think that is a fair comparison.
Boerderij_Kabouter
Well-Known Member
Hmmmm.... I see I was slow.
As a further note, my recent IPA dropped from 1.070 → 1.007 in three days. This is about the same as many commercial breweries.
Sorry OP, I bet you didn't see this coming.
As a further note, my recent IPA dropped from 1.070 → 1.007 in three days. This is about the same as many commercial breweries.
Sorry OP, I bet you didn't see this coming.
Justibone
Well-Known Member
Ray: yeast are alive.
Similar threads
