damn it. infection??

[aprichman]

i think the idea of installing a spigot in my fermenters is a good one. just for sample taking so i dont ever have to open the lid until bottling.

You guys are right I probably just left it open too long or something. Now I know better for next time.

Im going to bottle it tonight along with another batch (will bottle the first batch first) then im going to bleach bomb all my gear. before next brew i'll replace all my tubing and possibly racking cane, but im going to keep the fermenter and bottling bucket and just bleach the bejeezus out of them.

i really like the spigot idea for taking samples.

If you rinse with warm, soapy water and then run bleach water through your tubing and siphon they should be fine. Seems like a waste to replace all of that stuff after only 2 batches.

 

[wilserbrewer]

i think the idea of installing a spigot in my fermenters is a good one. just for sample taking so i dont ever have to open the lid until bottling.
.

A spigot on your fermenter can be a place for potential contamination. The convenience is offset by having to remove, disassemble and clean the spigot. Not for me, no net savings IMO.

 

[m00ps]

agreed, plus you'd need to find the exact place to locate it on the bucket. If its at the bottom like a bottling bucket, your sample will be trub and yeast, pure sludge. The best elevation to get a sample from will vary with each batch depending on the amount of trub and how much the yeast float

spigots are notorious for harboring infections. The only reason mine stays clean is because I either flush it immediately with starsan or disassemble it into a bucket of starsan after each use. If you've got an open valve on your fermentor, once you pull that first sample, itll be contaminated by the second unless you can think of a way to flush the spigot out

 

[MagicMatt]

How would you ever know that the gravity is still slowly dropping? If only we had a new-fangled, futuristic device that could tell us these things

You mean, like a hydrometer?

I take gravity readings, that's how I know it's slowly dropping.

 

[stpug]

You mean, like a hydrometer?

I take gravity readings, that's how I know it's slowly dropping.

Hey now!! I think you're on to something!! :fro:

 

[stpug]

Quite the opposite, the fermentation "stalled" because this is a tendency of the yeast strain. Taking 3 gravity readings over a 5-6 day period would have indicated there was no change in gravity. If all you rely on is a gravity reading that would indicate that the beer is done or has reached final gravity.

This conclusion would have been incorrect however. The yeast basically went into a 5-7 day hibernation and still needed more time to fully attenuate. The end result would be bottle bombs or unfinished beer in the keg.

So to reiterate, hydrometers are useful tools but you can't always rely solely on hydrometer readings to draw meaningful conclusions about your fermentation.

Okay. I think I understand what you're saying now. Hydrometers are not to be trusted. I suspect that no tool in production can account for a slow drop in gravity over time. After all, this could not be the fault of the user or their sampling strategy.

 

[pwnshop]

OK I see what you guys are saying about the spigot. I guess I just need to be more careful with my sample taking!

On the bright side I think the beer is still going to turn out. I bottled it tonight and aside from that bit on the top the beer is super clear and it tastes pretty good actually. Definitely not sour or foul. It might not turn out the best but it will definitely be drinkable.

As far as cleaning:
I have the hoses, racking cane airlock, bottle filler and all other misc. Little bits that I used for bottling soaking in oxyclean right now. It is all in the fermenter filled up just past halfway. I scrubbed the fermenter real good with oxyclean and a soft sponge.
I figure I will let it sit until tomorrow and then dump it rinse it and do the same thing with bleach.

What ratio of water : bleach is good for this?

Also I just cleaned my bottling bucket with oxyclean and then starsan'd it. Should I bleach it as well?

Here's a picture of the sample just for the heck of it.

View attachment 1430877583471.jpg

 

[jcaudill]

Brew a lot of batches and gravity readings really aren't needed.

Ya I'm sorry, but this is really awful advice to give any new brewer. Gravity readings are paramount for making consistent beer and assessing how fermentation is progressing. Show me any commercial brewery worth their name that isn't taking gravity readings on a daily basis. Nobody guesses - because you simply shouldn't. There are too many variables that come into play. Like I always say, anyone can make beer. Making consistently good beer is another story and it comes with consistency in the process and obsessing over the details.

On another note - to the OP: you'd really be better off getting something like a Better Bottle with a racking port for taking gravity reading so you don't need to open the fermenter and stick anything in it which is always a risk (although it becomes much less so when alcohol is present).

 

[wilserbrewer]

Psylocide's statement was given in the context of someone that would have been better off not taking a gravity reading, rather than letting the beer sit for 20 days with air in the head space of a bucket.

We all agree, gravity readings are great, but exposing your beer to air for long periods of time is not wise.

 

[jcaudill]

Psylocide's statement was given in the context of someone that would have been better off not taking a gravity reading, rather than letting the beer sit for 20 days with air in the head space of a bucket.

We all agree, gravity readings are great, but exposing your beer to air for long periods of time is not wise.

Ok that makes sense Sorry that wasn't clear!

I obviously agree hence the recommendation to use something with a racking port!

 

[CUrchin]

I only check my gravity when I'm quite confident my beer is done. Otherwise IMO the risks of continually opening and closing my fermentor aren't worth knowing where the beer is at. Otherwise the only other time I open my fermentor is for dry hopping.

If you want to watch, get a clear fermentor.

 

[jcaudill]

I will admit I'm a bit spoiled as I have conicals only. Although I never can see a darn thing

 

[Psylocide]

Ya I'm sorry, but this is really awful advice to give any new brewer. Gravity readings are paramount for making consistent beer and assessing how fermentation is progressing. Show me any commercial brewery worth their name that isn't taking gravity readings on a daily basis. Nobody guesses - because you simply shouldn't. There are too many variables that come into play. Like I always say, anyone can make beer. Making consistently good beer is another story and it comes with consistency in the process and obsessing over the details.

On another note - to the OP: you'd really be better off getting something like a Better Bottle with a racking port for taking gravity reading so you don't need to open the fermenter and stick anything in it which is always a risk (although it becomes much less so when alcohol is present).

Yeah, I suppose I should've been more clear as well.

My reason for saying that to the other poster was, if I brew a house pale over and over and over, using the same process, same ingredients, etc., why would I need to take a gravity reading outside of the first few times that I brew it?

If I do take one and it's not what I expected, what can I do about that? Nothing really, 'damage' is done, so to speak.

Yeah, you could toss more yeast in or swirl the fermenter or warm it up, but obviously something else in my process broke down if I can't replicate it on the system that I use every time.

So... yeah, was being a little facetious, as this really only pertains to recipes that are proven on your system and your method is sound.

 

[Hello]

Funny, those are conflicting ideas: "don't open the bucket" and "once fermentation is done"; how can you tell if fermentation is done if you don't take a gravity reading? And how can you take a gravity reading without opening the bucket???

And if it isn't fermented out yet???? Just act like you didn't open the bucket?

I'm with you. I don't agree that you shouldn't open a bucket once to take a reading. I always tell people to wait at least 7 days, 10 is ideal. I don't think that opening a bucket and then letting it sit for 20 days is a guaranteed infection. In fact, it has never happened to me. While anecdotal evidence is not science, it at least tells me that I'm not doomed if I open a bucket to check a gravity and then let it sit.
I just kind of feel like the doomsday attitude over opening a fermenter to check gravity then letting it sit for a bit is a bit dramatic.

Brew a lot of batches and gravity readings really aren't needed.

Come on, why skip it at all? Sure, you don't need to take readings but if you actually want to know if your beer is done fermenting then how else will you be able to tell?

 

[jcaudill]

Valid points! And sorry for coming across a bit crass. To your point about brewing the same Pale Ale over and over again here would be my view: you may use the same recipe and same manufacturer of ingredients. But even ingredients change over time. When I get my malt, I try to always check out the lot analysis and see if anything has changed. Something that changes there could affect my brew. Or lets say you get a bad pitch or bad yeast - your fermentation is potentially going to be hosed and if you're taking readings along the way you can make some conclusions and possibly salvage your beer. So that is why I think it's always important. And then there is the pure habitual/moral side of it. I think the more anal you are, the better your product is going to be, the better your cleaning/sanitation is going to be, yada yada yada. Once you get complacent it's too easily to slack in other areas - "oh 10 minutes caustic is fine".

 

[CUrchin]

I do see this as different strokes for different folks. However, if you know a beer isn't done, why do you need a gravity reading? I guess it makes some people feel better, but I look at it as a waste of time, potentially a waste of beer (do you return that sample to the fermentor or no?), and increasing the risk of bad things i.e. Infection, oxygen, etc.

 

[kombat]

I check my gravity twice. Once after chilling, before it's racked into the fermenter, and again on kegging day, to determine my ABV.

 

[jcaudill]

I do see this as different strokes for different folks. However, if you know a beer isn't done, why do you need a gravity reading? I guess it makes some people feel better, but I look at it as a waste of time, potentially a waste of beer (do you return that sample to the fermentor or no?), and increasing the risk of bad things i.e. Infection, oxygen, etc.

It's not a feel better thing or even a matter of opinion. Like I said before, why would every commercial brewery take gravity readings if there wasn't a reason? The only way to assess how fermentation is proceeding is to take gravity readings. You look for signs of abnormal changes in gravity which indicates potential problems - most notably attenuation. Say you get a bad crop of yeast - you pitch it and come back 7 days later. You take your gravity, and find that it's only 50% attenuated. Now what? Better off to catch these problems during fermentation so you can do something about it with less risk to the final product. Or let's say you reached your target gravity yet primary fermentation is still going? You want to get it off that yeast so you don't end up with an over-attenuated beer.

That is what makes a consistent product, and a consistent brewer. And now, you toss away the sample please don't put it back! That is why your batch size should allow for sampling.

All this said I understand the logic coming from a Homebrewer's perspective especially if you're using something without a sampling port. That is why I try to steer people to something like a Better Bottle that has a racking port and you can safely take samples without risking anything.

 

[Psylocide]

Valid points! And sorry for coming across a bit crass. To your point about brewing the same Pale Ale over and over again here would be my view: you may use the same recipe and same manufacturer of ingredients. But even ingredients change over time. When I get my malt, I try to always check out the lot analysis and see if anything has changed. Something that changes there could affect my brew. Or lets say you get a bad pitch or bad yeast - your fermentation is potentially going to be hosed and if you're taking readings along the way you can make some conclusions and possibly salvage your beer. So that is why I think it's always important. And then there is the pure habitual/moral side of it. I think the more anal you are, the better your product is going to be, the better your cleaning/sanitation is going to be, yada yada yada. Once you get complacent it's too easily to slack in other areas - "oh 10 minutes caustic is fine".

Right, but that's the point. If you had a bad pitch or some other factor that came into play, then your yeast is stressed and you'll have off flavors, or the batch will just not be what you expected in the first place, due to those factors that would be impossible to replicate.

I guess what I'm getting at is, if your beer didn't finish fermenting within your normal timeline, then SOMETHING is going to be off.

If I see active fermentation, I see krausen drop, I see the beer start to clear, it's been 2-3 weeks, then the beer is done. Any attempts to 'salvage' a beer that finished too high will result in a completely different beer than what you were trying to brew in the first place. Something will be off from that batch vs. one that fermented to completion on it's own.

That completely goes against the consistency argument, IMO.

Of course, these are all my opinions based on my personal experiences with brewing.

 

[jcaudill]

Right, but that's the point. If you had a bad pitch or some other factor that came into play, then your yeast is stressed and you'll have off flavors, or the batch will just not be what you expected in the first place, due to those factors that would be impossible to replicate.

I guess what I'm getting at is, if your beer didn't finish fermenting within your normal timeline, then SOMETHING is going to be off.

If I see active fermentation, I see krausen drop, I see the beer start to clear, it's been 2-3 weeks, then the beer is done. Any attempts to 'salvage' a beer that finished too high will result in a completely different beer than what you were trying to brew in the first place. Something will be off from that batch vs. one that fermented to completion on it's own.

That completely goes against the consistency argument, IMO.

Of course, these are all my opinions based on my personal experiences with brewing.

That entire situation certainly is possible. And you're right - after 2-3 weeks it is said and done. That's why I think it's important to be watching daily. There's always something you can do. The problem for most is having the proper equipment to do so. I'm pretty fortunate in that I have really good temperature control, and I can brew a batch of beer that doesn't see air after I cast out and can brew plenty of excess for samples or loss to dry hop trub. If I read between the lines, I think that is really the differentiating factor here.

 

[stpug]

^^Troll

 

[aprichman]

I'm with Kombat - I almost always take an initial gravity reading and then another one when I'm bottling 3-4 weeks later. I ferment in clear carboys so it's really easy to see what's going on with the yeast.

 

[calmingapple]

Sorry to interrupt this thread.
Humangarbage, I tried to send you a direct message via the forums but it stated you either had that feature turned off or something was askew.

Just noticed you were in the same hometown as me (Surrey. Was looking at the Canadian homebrew subsection). Anyway, wanted to know if you were interested in doing a trade and/or start a homebrew group or something for fun like that. I am going to start something like that soon so I can find others interested in the brew hobby.

Cheers!
... Sorry again to interrupt! Back to your regular programming!

I've had that in the past. Sometimes it tastes fine, other times foul.

Like the other poster said, trash that bucket. I've never been able to get an infected bucket totally clean again. Even if it isn't as bad, every beer made in it afterward will have some degree of pedicule development.

I got so pissed off with plastic for the above reason. I switched to using my glass secondarys as primarys and stopped doing a secondary at all. Never had an issue since. Glass is kind of a pain because of its fragility but easy to clean well. In about 40 batches since I've only broken one... While I was cleaning it thankfully so no precious beer lost.