Carboy vs Bucket Fermenting??

[55x11]

All the talk in favor of glass carboys based upon "being able to see fermentation" doesn't make sense. Is seeing your fermentation a cool thing? Perhaps to some. But is it an advantage over not being able to see it through opaque plastic? No. For one thing, your beer shouldn't be exposed to light; it should be completely covered or placed in a dark place during ferm. So, there's no advantage to a glass carboy in that sense. Even if it is covered or in the dark, you shouldn't keep taking a peek at it in order to assess its progress --- that's done with a hydrometer regardless of the type of ferm vessel. Bubbling, not bubbling doesn't tell you a thing about the condition of your beer.

I love to watch my airlock bubble, but it's pure entertainment, not brewing science; seeing it tells me nothing.

I disagree, it's useful and not "pure entertainment"

"seeing" tells you a great deal - watching krausen rise and fall, and the yeast flocculate are all important pointers to me of different fermentation stages. You don't need to expose your entire fermenter to direct sunlight for entire fermentation duration to see this - just sneak a peak once in a while, that's super easy. I have fermented in the kegs but also in buckets and transparent fermenters (PET and glass) and there is no substitute for seeing the fermentation process.

I even have a brewometer so I can see specific gravity vs. time and I still get a lot of information from watching the fermenter.

Do you draw gravity samples daily? every other day?

 

[MaryB]

Buckets are fine! The lid doesn't have to seal tight because fermenting beer ALWAYS has a layer of CO2 on top even if it is only am inch thick! Sure it mixes eventually with O2 but the beer is always producing CO2 to replace what mixes. For the ales many of us prefer it is perfectly fine for 4 weeks then bottle.

If I was going to do a lager or a high gravity ale that needs 8+ weeks in the primary then a long secondary then sure, go stainless or glass.

It depends on the beer style an the aging needed.

 

[SGTSparty]

Besides, I bet you most people who are asking about buckets won't be able to tell if their bucket cover is sealed properly.

Not to hijack but I've seen this comment several times recently and is this really an issue? I'm not trying to be a jerk I'm really asking. As a relatively inexperience AG brewer doing Primary only in bottling buckets I've never had an issue. Don't you just press on the lid and see if it the pressure differential causes the the airlock to shift and hold at different levels? At least that's what I do with my 3-piece. Am I doing this wrong?

 

[LLBeanJ]

Also, if you are singling out primary - do you transfer to secondary?

No

from bucket to... carboy?

No

Then why not use carboy to begin with?

Because IMHO carboys suck. Everything about using a carboy is a royal PITA. I have three glass carboys I bought way back before I knew better. Haven't used them in years.

I rarely need a secondary. Why does anybody need a secondary? I have no idea, really. Most secondary fermentations (I'm talking true secondary, as in adding more fermentables after primary has tapered off or subsided, not bulk aging or clearing) can be done in the primary. If I need to bulk age, I have kegs. Lots and lots of kegs. Kegs are great for clearing your beer, too. Here's a tip... want to improve your brewing? Take the money you would have spent on glass and put it towards a kegging setup. Kegs are useful for much more than just serving beer.

If you got your healthy yeast and the whole process down to the point that you bottle your beers after 3-5 days, like commercial breweries do, then sure - go ahead and use buckets only. If you are asking about buckets vs. carboys, you probably ferment for 2-3 weeks and probably will get stuck fermentation once in a while.

Yes, healthy yeast is important. Like, really, really important. Once you've done a couple practice brews, there's really no excuse for not having healthy yeast. 10-12 days in the bucket is about my norm. Maybe up to 17 days for a bigger brew. Stuck fermentation? No, I don't have issues with stuck fermentations. Stuck fermentations are rookie problems. My brews are usually clearing in 5-10 days and kegged 2-3 days later. Just kegged a Scottish ale a couple days ago that was brewed exactly one week prior.

Besides, I bet you most people who are asking about buckets won't be able to tell if their bucket cover is sealed properly.

I couldn't care less if the lid is sealed. In fact, I leave the lid loose most of the time. A sealed primary fermenter simply isn't needed and can actually be a detriment with some brews.

Look, I'm sure the great bucket vs carboy debate will go on long after we're all gone. It is what it is, but the bottom line is that they both work fine. If you want to hassle with a carboy (maybe you don't see it as a hassle at all, that's cool), then go for it. Knock yourself out. I won't judge. Do what makes sense for you and I'll do the same. I've brewed enough beer over the years to know that I can brew better beer in a bucket with a leaky lid, no airlock, and no secondary (or brite tank) than most home brewers can using sealed glass, secondary, brite tank, etc. because I have my processes down.

Sometimes it does come down to the equipment. Most of the time, however, it comes down to the process. There's not much need to get hung up on the equipment side of things if you get your processes nailed down.

 

[LLBeanJ]

If I was going to do a lager or a high gravity ale that needs 8+ weeks in the primary then a long secondary then sure, go stainless or glass.

I agree with your general sentiments, but I just want to point out that lagers don't need 8 weeks in primary. They're same as ales when it comes to primary duration. I've brewed many lagers and they're usually starting to clear in 4-7 days, do a D-rest for 3 days, cold crash for a few days, and transfer to the lagering vessel, which in my brewery would be a keg. Most likely, the same keg I'll serve the beer out of when it's time to put on tap. I rarely have a lager that goes more than 2 weeks in the primary fermenter.

 

[RM-MN]

The bucket lid doesn't need to be sealed. Lots of new brewers look for airlock action to tell if their beer is fermenting but that is only one indicator. If the bucket lid seals the excess gas has to be vented through the airlock and that makes it bubble. If it isn't sealed the gas can escape around the lid and since there is a net outflow of gas in most case it doesn't matter where it escapes.

 

[TorMag]

It was mentioned only once in this thread, but I am really enjoying my Fast Fermenter Conical. I've used it three times and have it mounted on my wall in the basement (when I get a fermentation chamber, it will go in there). It makes the process so easy and it is very easy to use. BTW, Midwest has a great deal this week on them. 15% off and free shipping. Thinking of getting a second one.

 

[oljimmy]

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

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

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

 

[55x11]

No



No



Because IMHO carboys suck. Everything about using a carboy is a royal PITA. I have three glass carboys I bought way back before I knew better. Haven't used them in years.

I rarely need a secondary. Why does anybody need a secondary? I have no idea, really. Most secondary fermentations (I'm talking true secondary, as in adding more fermentables after primary has tapered off or subsided, not bulk aging or clearing) can be done in the primary. If I need to bulk age, I have kegs. Lots and lots of kegs. Kegs are great for clearing your beer, too. Here's a tip... want to improve your brewing? Take the money you would have spent on glass and put it towards a kegging setup. Kegs are useful for much more than just serving beer.



Yes, healthy yeast is important. Like, really, really important. Once you've done a couple practice brews, there's really no excuse for not having healthy yeast. 10-12 days in the bucket is about my norm. Maybe up to 17 days for a bigger brew. Stuck fermentation? No, I don't have issues with stuck fermentations. Stuck fermentations are rookie problems. My brews are usually clearing in 5-10 days and kegged 2-3 days later. Just kegged a Scottish ale a couple days ago that was brewed exactly one week prior.



I couldn't care less if the lid is sealed. In fact, I leave the lid loose most of the time. A sealed primary fermenter simply isn't needed and can actually be a detriment with some brews.

Look, I'm sure the great bucket vs carboy debate will go on long after we're all gone. It is what it is, but the bottom line is that they both work fine. If you want to hassle with a carboy (maybe you don't see it as a hassle at all, that's cool), then go for it. Knock yourself out. I won't judge. Do what makes sense for you and I'll do the same. I've brewed enough beer over the years to know that I can brew better beer in a bucket with a leaky lid, no airlock, and no secondary (or brite tank) than most home brewers can using sealed glass, secondary, brite tank, etc. because I have my processes down.

Sometimes it does come down to the equipment. Most of the time, however, it comes down to the process. There's not much need to get hung up on the equipment side of things if you get your processes nailed down.

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

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

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

 

[55x11]

Not to hijack but I've seen this comment several times recently and is this really an issue? I'm not trying to be a jerk I'm really asking. As a relatively inexperience AG brewer doing Primary only in bottling buckets I've never had an issue. Don't you just press on the lid and see if it the pressure differential causes the the airlock to shift and hold at different levels? At least that's what I do with my 3-piece. Am I doing this wrong?

I think that's a good test. The problem is that most people don't do it (I suspect) and you could still have smaller leaks.

 

[LLBeanJ]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ZebulonBrewer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LLBeanJ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[kombat]

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

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

 

[kombat]

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

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

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

 

[LLBeanJ]

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

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

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

 

[LLBeanJ]

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

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

Without a doubt, that sounds easy.

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

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

 

[theseeker4]

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

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

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

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

 

[kh54s10]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[jplowe]

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

 

[55x11]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[oljimmy]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[idiotsinc]

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

 

[LLBeanJ]

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

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

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

 

[MaryB]

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

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

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

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

 

[MaryB]

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

 

[kombat]

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

 

[LLBeanJ]

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

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

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

 

[kombat]

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

Whoops, my bad, you're right.

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

 

[wilserbrewer]

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

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

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

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

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

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