No action! Yeah... I know. RDWHAHB.

[Revvy]

Because he took a gravity reading and it was at OG.

I missed that part. I thought he said he had no way to take a gravity reading.....I just caught it upon re-reading....

 

[sudsmcgee]

Yeah, he poured out wort to take a gravity reading.

 

[RallyintheValley]

Um, excuse me, but if you don't have a hydrometer, and didn't take a gravity reading then, how do you REALLY know that at 72 hours your yeast was dead?

I never said I didn't have a hydrometer, I said my thief wouldn't reach 2.5 gallons in a 5 gallon carboy.

 

[RallyintheValley]

Yeah, he poured out wort to take a gravity reading.

double

 

[Revvy]

I never said I didn't have a hydrometer, I said my thief wouldn't reach 2.5 gallons in a 5 gallon carboy.

I know, I just said I misread it....

 

[Hugh_Jass]

First, my comment about absurdity was aimed at the idea that Revvy is the only person saying it can take up to 72 hours.

Second, I can see from your experience why YOU find that YOUR system works a certain way. However, if you read a lot in here & listen to Jamil and John Palmer, you'll hear that systems can vary hugely among home brewers, and that requires each of us to brew differently.

Third, I just had a 60 hour lag on a 1.061 ESB where I used a starter (per mr. Malty), pitched at 63 (per interview w/ head brewer at Fuller's), oxygenated just as I've done with brews that showed krausen in 6 hours, sanitized thoroughly, etc. That beer is now at FG and cold crashing, and it came out great. Funny old world.

Here's the first two posts from the often referenced sticky:

"Don't worry if your brew takes up to 3 days to show signs fermenting.
Especially if you used liquid yeast and didn't make a big starter and oxygenate.
It is also worth noting that no bubbles in the air lock does not mean it isn't fermenting.

If at 3 days nothing seems to of happened then take a gravity reading to make sure you haven't missed the fermentation.
It is preferable to have a brew start fermenting as soon as possible
If you follow correct and advised procedures then I say most brews see activity in 6 to 18 hours. If this doesn't happen then it doesn't mean you've done anything wrong. You may just not be seeing it or it's taking it's time.

It is quite common for new brewers to get worried after 24 hours to 48 hours.
They get told to wait and then realise that the advice was correct.

First brew, and worried - Home Brew Forums
__________________
GET THE GOBLIN
Have a beer on me.


Rate Post:
Report Post Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message

Old 11-23-2007, 08:41 PM #2
Dude
Discover the motherlode

Dude's Avatar
Recipes

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Heidelberg, Germany, Baden Wurtemberg
Posts: 8,903
Dude's Gallery
Send a message via Yahoo to Dude

Default
Great sticky, because it is a popular question.

I will say though, let's not advocate that thinking fermentation starting in more than 12 hours is a good thing. It isn't. Any longer than 12 hours and you are looking for trouble--infections, sub-par beer and quite frankly it is a bad brewing practice.

Let's stress this thread on doing starters, aerating and oxygenating, and fundamental brewing practices! "

Both of these posts agree with my assertion that it is unusual for a normal, healthy fermentation to lag beyond 24 hrs. As Dude says, "you are looking for trouble--infections, sub-par beer and quite frankly it is a bad brewing practice."

I've only had one not start in 24 hrs and it was a phenolic bomb. If I would have re-pitched a healthy colony quicker, I *might* have saved that beer.

Glad yours turned out differently.

 

[Piratwolf]

Hey, Hugh~

I feel sort of like we're having two different conversations here.

My first post aimed only at contradicting the idea that Revvy is the only one who says not to worry too much about a lag. (You can see that b/c I quoted only that single sentence.) It seems like you took that personal even though it wasn't aimed at you.

My second post merely points out that if there's an exception to the rule you're trying promote, then it can't really be a rule. Lots of people post "YMMV" because they recognize that it's hard to find an absolute rule in such a widely varying hobby.

I would add to the preceeding point that I just recently listened to Jamil Z. (rather a better authority on yeast than me) say that he thinks the hombrewer's mania for immediate and violent fermentation is misguided because the lag time is important to flavor formation and healthy fermentations.

All that being said, I am in complete agreement that most (or "normal") healthy fermentations start somewhere in the first 24 hours. I haven't seen anyone contradict that. All some of us are saying is that 72 hours is NOT unheard of for beers that turn out okay, and in my experience those who post such things are trying to reassure the worried new brewers, not create a dogma for those who already know what they're doing.

Hopefully this clears things up so we can move on and make more delicious beer. Cheers & keep brewing strong, sir! :rockin:

 

[Hugh_Jass]

Hey, Hugh~

I feel sort of like we're having two different conversations here.

My first post aimed only at contradicting the idea that Revvy is the only one who says not to worry too much about a lag. (You can see that b/c I quoted only that single sentence.) It seems like you took that personal even though it wasn't aimed at you.

Nah, didn't take it personally. Should have posted that last in my last response.

My second post merely points out that if there's an exception to the rule you're trying promote, then it can't really be a rule. Lots of people post "YMMV" because they recognize that it's hard to find an absolute rule in such a widely varying hobby.

I would add to the preceeding point that I just recently listened to Jamil Z. (rather a better authority on yeast than me) say that he thinks the hombrewer's mania for immediate and violent fermentation is misguided because the lag time is important to flavor formation and healthy fermentations.

Understood, however, when we say "fermentation can take up to 72 hours" to a beginning homebrewer, that may be misconstrued as that being somewhat normal. Also, I haven't read/heard JZ's interview, but I wonder when he would be concerned if his beer didn't show fermentation. I'd agree with his assertion though up to a certain time frame.

All that being said, I am in complete agreement that most (or "normal") healthy fermentations start somewhere in the first 24 hours. I haven't seen anyone contradict that. All some of us are saying is that 72 hours is NOT unheard of for beers that turn out okay, and in my experience those who post such things are trying to reassure the worried new brewers, not create a dogma for those who already know what they're doing.

Sure it's not unheard of for yeast to take longer than normal. The point I was trying to make is there are reasons for these lags. In the OP's case, his yeast was dead; your was, more likely than not, because the temp was outside the normal range which caused the yeast to be a bit sluggish. (also speaks to your sanitation to have that long of a lag w/o other organisms taking hold).

Think if the OP just did the whole RDWHAHB and wait 72 hrs..then what? He finds the yeast is dead, the gravity didn't move and now has to figure out how he's going to make that 90 minute round trip to get another vial of yeast. Precisely the reason not to tell a newer brewer to wait 3 days before doing anything. IMO, a better tact would be to address it as if there may or may not be a problem and have plan B ready in case there is.

Hopefully this clears things up so we can move on and make more delicious beer. Cheers & keep brewing strong, sir! :rockin:

No worries, man. In the end, the goal is to make great beer. Cheers