No Longer Use Hydrometer

[bgrubb7]

I use my hydro for preboil readings to see if I'm coming close up to my BeerAlchemy numbers.

I use it right before going into the Primary, and I take a final gravity before bottling, so I can calculate my ABV.

For most of my beers I leave them in the primary for 2 weeks then go to a secondary for 2 more. I'm not worried about bottle bombs at that point. The only time I bother with Hydro reading from the primary are if I'm doing a quick brew, where I'm bottling straight from the primary or if I'm using a new yeast that I am not familiar with.

 

[olllllo]

If anyone has read Jeff Sparrow's Wild Beers....

Do you get the sense that many of those commercial lambic brewers DO NOT use a hydrometer?

The book details OG and FG but the brewer comments seem to imply that they take an OG reading and then it's all by their senses from day 1 to year 3.

 

[thewurzel]

Personally I like to only take a sample before pitching and one before keging. As its noce to know efficiency and ABV.

I use a wine thief and usually put sample back in before pitching yeast, and always drink it before keging, nice to know what it tastes like and it is only a couple ounces of beer.

 

[vfinch]

I take a sample:
-Pre-boil to check efficiency
-Pre-pitching
-Just before racking to secondary
-Before bottling/kegging

I always clean and sanitize my hydrometer, tube and sampler so I have no qualms about dumping the sample back into the batch. I've never had an issue, and I don't lose any beer. As well, I always take a small portion to taste. I don't find taking the samples that much of a chore (10mins tops each, with cleaning up??).

 

[ohiobrewtus]

Like Bobby, I brew 5.5 gallons to account for samples (as well as wort loss to trub). I always take a reading when the wort is going into primary, then I take another when I keg.

If I'm using a different yeast strain for the first time or brewing a style that I have never brewed before, I will also take a reading before racking to secondary, to ensure that attenuation is within range for the yeast and is consistent with my recipe.

If I'm brewing a huge beer (1.090 or higher) I'll take a pre-boil reading to see if I need to make any adjustments in process.

There are a few brews that I do so often that I could probably get away with not doing the readings, but it's my way of verifying that everything is going smoothly.

For example - I've made my EF clone probably 10 times now and every time the FG came in between 1.014 and 1.017. I checked my most recent batch before I kegged it and it was 1.010. If nothing else, it is nice to know that this keg will finish a bit more dry than the batches that I've made in the past.

 

[SteveM]

If anyone has read Jeff Sparrow's Wild Beers....

Do you get the sense that many of those commercial lambic brewers DO NOT use a hydrometer?

The book it self details OG and FG but the brewer comments seem to imply that they take an OG reading and then it's all by their senses from day 1 to year 3.

The way Papazian writes in Microbrewed Adventures seems to suggest that he is not careful about hydrometer use also. He gives the OG and FG but seems to imply that he goes by guess and by gosh for determining when the ferment is finished.

 

[grace1760]

Why are hydrometer readings good for preventing bottle bombs? Is it simply that a beer that is not completely done fermenting (as indicated by FG) could continue to produce gas in the bottle?

 

[uglygoat]

exactly grace.

if it's a beer style that's small, like pale ales and bitters i generally am not checking the og, just the final, to see where it's down too. my last twenty brews have all been 8-10 lbs of some sort of two row, and less than a pound of crystal type malt. i keg it all these days, good luck blowing that thing up...

 

[stever]

Some of us are anal and just like to keep track of every detail and/or we like to know if we are close to what the recipe calls for and/or we like to know or final ABV. If you don't really care about any of those then by all means, don't both with the readings. To each his own.

 

[cheezydemon]

Absolutely stever, this was by no means meant to be an "anti hydrometer" thread.

I am neither anal, nor overloaded with time, so it seems unneccesary to me.

As I stated, I take a few tablespoons to taste when I think it is done. What kind of brewer would I be after 30 or so batches if I could not tell that a batch was way off by taste, especially when the main culprit would be too much sweetness?

Another plus on bottling. It makes you wait at least a week or two for carbing . I have seen many threads on short cutting the already fast process of keg carbing. No doubt to drink it only a day or two after being born(ie: out of the fermenter)

 

[stever]

Absolutely stever, this was by no means meant to be an "anti hydrometer" thread.

I am neither anal, nor overloaded with time, so it seems unneccesary to me.

As I stated, I take a few tablespoons to taste when I think it is done. What kind of brewer would I be after 30 or so batches if I could not tell that a batch was way off by taste, especially when the main culprit would be too much sweetness?

Another plus on bottling. It makes you wait at least a week or two for carbing . I have seen many threads on short cutting the already fast process of keg carbing. No doubt to drink it only a day or two after being born(ie: out of the fermenter)

Also you don't think the early brewers had hydrometers do you? nope, they just drank it and went.. wow, I feel funny! Either way, you do what you want, it's your beer, but for me, I want to know every damn detail I can about this beer and log it.

 

[BierMuncher]

Taking a "no worries" approach to hyrometer readings is fine for a lot of people. I think it is no big deal for those who brew the same basic styles/recipes over and over, and have no concern over informing their guests what they are drinking.

For me...I jump from one style to the next week over week. I also serve more beer than I drink. Those two factors make it important for me to know my gravities...A) So I know that I have in fact brewed an ESB rather than an Ordinary and B) so I can label the beer accordingly for my "customers".

I take fastidious notes so I can replicate a winning recipe...knowing the gravities of those beers is one of the essential equations.

 

[Nablis]

All of you that leave it in the primary for 2 weeks or more.
John Palmer talks about the trub and proteins in the primary fermenter contributing off flavors are you not concerned with this?

 

[Chriso]

Nope. Palmer is referring to many, many months not weeks. I wouldn't hesitate to leave a brew in primary, on the yeast cake, for 6 weeks. I wouldn't even be nervous at 8 weeks.

 

[IrregularPulse]

"Leaving post-Primary beer on the trub and yeast cake for too long (more than a month, for example) can result in soapy flavors in the beer due to oxidation and other chemical reactions. Further, after very long times, the yeast may begin to die and break down - Autolysis, which produces meaty sulfuric tastes and smells. Depending on yeast strain, wort composition, fermentation conditions, and phase of the moon, it may be necessary to get the beer off the trub and dormant yeast during the conditioning phase. However, now that you have been duly warned, I will say that I routinely leave my beer in the primary for 3-4 weeks, due to lack of time, clean bottles,and a sanitized siphon, without any problems
Leaving an Ale beer in the primary fermenter for a total of 2-3 weeks, instead of just one, will provide time for the conditioning reactions to improve the beer. The extra time will also let mor sediment settle out before bottling, resulting in a clearer beer and easier pouring."
-John J. Palmer, How To Brew, pg.90-

Translation - No we're not worried about it.

 

[FlyGuy]

All of you that leave it in the primary for 2 weeks or more.
John Palmer talks about the trub and proteins in the primary fermenter contributing off flavors are you not concerned with this?

Not if you started with an appropriate amount of healthy yeast.

If you underpitched, overpitched, didn't aerate/oxygenate, didn't bother with a starter, etc., then I might worry.

 

[Revvy]

All of you that leave it in the primary for 2 weeks or more.
John Palmer talks about the trub and proteins in the primary fermenter contributing off flavors are you not concerned with this?

The dreaded autolysis boogeyman makes it's semi regular appearance...and by a first time poster no, less

Welcome!!!!!

(But leave your myths at the door and learn sumptin.)

Translation - No we're not worried about it.

+1

No one also seems to notice in the part of the "Dreaded Autolysis" section of the (no one also seems to notice) LAGER chapter;

As a final note on this subject, I should mention that by brewing with healthy yeast in a well-prepared wort, many experienced brewers, myself included, have been able to leave a beer in the primary fermenter for several months without any evidence of autolysis.

If anything it is an issue more for lager brewers than for ales....AND like the other dreaded boogeyman, Hot Side Aeration, it's something that large scale BMC brewers are concerned about, more than we should be.

Why do you ask, my friends? Well, think about this...you are brewing for mass market commercial sales, a beer with almost no flavor profile whatsoever (or as their marketing gurus say in various forms, "A clean, Crisp Flavor, like the cold mountain water it's brewed with, yadda yadda yadda" ) You don't want any flavors whatsoever, good or bad in it.

 

[cheezydemon]

Ahh the dreaded BMC basher rears it's head . (I agree completely)

Actually biermuncher, I have only done one of my recipes twice. (and on the third day, it seemed like 5 days - STEVE MARTIN IN THE JERK)

Sorry, by that I mean that out of 30 or so batches, only 2 were the same.

Another important factor: I don't give a crap what style it is. Maerzen, Imperial Stout, and Helles Munich were the only 3 that aimed for a certain style. (And the imperial stouts have been just huge conglomerations of dark ingredients until the yeast couldn't take anymore)

I have experimented and shot for flavor rather than style from day 1.

My first imperial stout didn't seem strong enough after primary, so I boiled 3 more lbs of dark DME in a gallon or so of water and added that to the primary. No sweat.

It turned out great. (1 full year later no oxidation either)

I'm sure some will scoff at that, but guys like me hit on those great new styles that might otherwise never have been invented. (like my caramel maerzen )

 

[Chriso]

Oh! We're talking about the twin Bogeymen again? Fancy that! I have a picture of them for you, Revvy!!! Do you like it?

 

[DeathBrewer]

Nice!!!!!

 

[BigKahuna]

I still do because I like to know my efficiency and I like to know ABV % so I can warn people.

I don't care about warning people, but it's fun to know which ones to watch. :cross:

 

[Revvy]

Oh! We're talking about the twin Bogeymen again? Fancy that! I have a picture of them for you, Revvy!!! Do you like it?

Cool!!!!!

So which of you bad boy brewers is gonna be the first to have that tattooed on your back???


And Cheezy I wasn't doing a big bash on BMC...but it is true that brewing that style commercially, and having it taste the same, means that any off flavors, even slightly would come through hugely, that's why their brewing scientists come up with all those hardcore mumbo jumbo's like HSA and autolysis. I'm not saying those don't exist...just that they are not that crucial to us humble home brewers, especially those of us lowly ale brewers.

So in a sense I was actually paying bmc brewers uber props (even though I don't like the style.)

 

[Choguy03]

And the winner is......

I think this debate is like who is better, the Cubs or the White Sox. Who will be a better president Obama or McCain. I feel like I am in a rocking chair, reading this is giving me something to do but in the end I didn't get anywhere.

 

[JacobInIndy]

I check my hydro after every bubble in the airlock...

 

[homebrewer_99]

I won't brew without taking readings. That doesn't make me anal, just meticulous. If you don't take any readings you're only guessing...

As for samples, their flavors and readings tell me if the brew progressing as it should.

I don't know about others, but I haven't really heard/read about anyone (except myself) who also take temp readings along with the intermediate gravity readings. If the temps are too high I can adjust that by a cold water bath/t-shirt wick, etc., to keep the temps within the proper range the yeast likes to live and work in. If you don't then you could end up with a fruitier brew then you expected.

My take on brewing is even though it is a (relatively getting expensive) hobby, at 40 batches a year, I try my best to make every batch as enjoyable as the last one and the next one. I strive to eliminate all chances of brewing a failed batch.

Taking readings takes ALL of the guesswork out of the equation. Plus I can tell you what my OF and FGs were aides me in calculating my alcohol potential as well as my yeasts attenuation.

Now, there's a bunch of people who'll say, "well, does it taste good?" And others will answer "yes", to which the reply is "then what do the numbers matter as long as it tastes good?" Well, the numbers do matter if you are trying to duplicate a previous brew.

Your technique is all guesswork, has no validity, and is just downright sloppy brewing.

This was not an attack on you, just the technique, or lack of...

 

[BierMuncher]

The problem with not taking readings...is that you can't look like a cool mad scientist...

 

[Orfy]

99% of the time the hydrometer backs up what I think.
But it's better to know I'm right than just thinking I'm right.

If you have patience and know what you are doing and have proven methods then you don't need one. But it's better to back up your judgement with solid facts.