Sugar Priming

[bellaruche]

I'm about to bottle my first batch and can not decide whether to add the dextros to the bucket (on the bottom, pouring beer on top), or individually to each bottle. Anyone have a preferred method?

 

[Hammy71]

I prefer the buket method.

A good read...

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f35/bottling-tips-homebrewer-94812/

 

[CBK]

Adding to the bucket first and racking on top is definitly the most accurate way to go.

 

[Reno_eNVy]

Adding to the bucket first and racking on top is definitly the most accurate way to go.

+1

Just did a post about this, actually:

"The general consensus (at least I've found) is that you get a cup of water boiling, mix in the sugar until completely dissolved, then dump it in your bottling bucket before racking your beer. This is create a whirl-pool motion and mix up all the sugar for you... as the beer fills your bottling bucket, the higher concentration of sugars in the liquid you racked early on will naturally disperse to the areas of lower concentration, thus giving you a homologous solution."

You don't want to run the risk of adding sugar to each bottle (~50 usually for a 5 gallon batch) as you'll probably end up will less or more in some than others, giving you uneven carbonation throughout your batch.

 

[Revvy]

Bulk is the best!!!

 

[bellaruche]

Excellent! 'preciate the replies! Goin' for the bucket!

 

[bellaruche]

One more question, please. After bucket priming: do I immediately bottle or does it need to sit a bit? I've read the 1-2-3, but the 'rules' are obviously interchangable. Thanks for any responsse.

 

[Revvy]

One more question, please. After bucket priming: do I immediately bottle or does it need to sit a bit? I've read the 1-2-3, but the 'rules' are obviously interchangable. Thanks for any responsse.

???

Are you asking does it need to sit in the bucket after you add your priming solution before you bottle it? Or how long does a beer need to carb up?

If it's the first question, no, you add your sugar solution and bottle immediately.

if it's how long til your beer is ready, that is going to depend on the gravity and the temp you store the beer. The 3 weeks at 70 degrees, that that we recommend is the minimum time it takes for average gravity beers to carbonate and condition. Higher grav beers take longer.

Stouts and porters have taken me between 6 and 8 weeks to carb up..I have a 1.090 Belgian strong that took three months to carb up.

Temp and gravity are the two factors that contribute to the time it takes to carb beer. But if a beer's not ready yet, or seems low carbed, and you added the right amount of sugar to it, then it's not stalled, it's just not time yet.

Everything you need to know about carbing and conditioning, can be found here Of Patience and Bottle Conditioning. With emphasis on the word, "patience."

If a beer isn't carbed by "x number of weeks" you just have to give them ore time. If you added your sugar, then the beer will carb up eventually, it's really a foolroof process. All beers will carb up eventually. A lot of new brewers think they have to "troubleshoot" a bottling issue, when there really is none, the beer knows how to carb itself. In fact if you run beersmiths carbing calculator, some lower grav beers don't even require additional sugar to reach their minimum level of carbonation. Just time.

Hope this helps...

 

[iron_city_ap]

Like Revvy said, there are a few different factors that can have an effect on your beer. Definately put the sugar in the bottling bucket before adding the beer. You will get much more even carbonation between your beers. Another factor is how much sugar you use, and whether or not your wort has fully fermented before bottling. That's one of the reasons why you need a steady hydrometer reading before bottling.

I've always found this video very helpful in understanding the stages of carbonation after you bottle.

 

[bellaruche]

Thank you both very much. That completely answered my inquiry. My airlock has pretty much ceased bubbling now. This is day 10. It's my first batch... so I'm prolly gonna have some 'green' questions. Thanks, again.

 

[dogma9]

looks like adding to each bottle would be just as accurate. on my mr beer kit i just took a measuring spoon for the right amount of sugar for my bottles and took a funnel and put a scoop in each bottle. so far they all been carbed the same that i can tell

 

[SoonerDoc]

You can do it that way but it takes more time. What's the advantage?

 

[dogma9]

You can do it that way but it takes more time. What's the advantage?

i saw a post earlier of a person have bottle bombs and getting cut as the bottle exploded when they opened the closet. out of all the possible causes one was that the sugar wasn't mixed well and that stirring adds oxygen. looks to me like it would be safer for a noob like me to add sugars to each bottle even though it takes longer

 

[Revvy]

i saw a post earlier of a person have bottle bombs and getting cut as the bottle exploded when they opened the closet. out of all the possible causes one was that the sugar wasn't mixed well and that stirring adds oxygen. looks to me like it would be safer for a noob like me to add sugars to each bottle even though it takes longer

Actually, if you look at the history of homebrewing, most bottle bombs came from priming individual bottles, because that was how it was done throughout the history of early homebrewing even up to the 1970's when it was legalized. . Because you really can't accurately measure sugar and easily get it in the bottle with those tools, and even one or two grains can be too much sugar. Plus adding dry sugar to wet beer can much more easily lead to inconsistant carbonation as some of the sugar my clump and not easily dissolve, and just sit in the bottom of the bottle, it is much better to boil it up and prime bulk. Additional there is a further risk of bottle bombs by dry priming sugar in bottles, and that is due to sanitization....especially if you grab your sugar right out of the sugar jar at home, boiling the sugar in water actually sterilizes it.

Back in the day it wasn't just one rare bottle that blew up, but entire cases, sounding like a string of firecrackers going of, BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM...you get the idea....

You sound like you are so overly afraid of bottle bombs that your logic is a little backwards.

The bottle bomb is a RARE thing these days, precisely because we bulk prime in the bucket, and don't put the dry sugar in the bottle..

The poster in the thread said basically "in all my batches this is the first time it's happened." It is really not that common. But it does happen, usually these days because of an infection/sanitization issue in a bottle (or a batch) or because of a flaw in the bottle, or becasue the bottles were actually stored in too warm a place, or they purposefully or accidently over primed the batch with too much sugar that the standard bottle can handle (like trying to put belgians in something other than a champagne bottle, NOT because the poster, or the MILLIONS of homebrewer who bulk prime via a bottling bucket as shown in Papazian, Palmer, and countless homebrewing books, bulk by that method.

And more than likely her bottle bomb will be traced to some fluke or bad math calculation as well, NOT because she bulked primed.

You don't NEED to stir the priming solution when you add it to the bucket, I NEVER DO, and I've never had a problem with inconsistent carbonation. In the hundreds if not thousands of gallons I have brewed and bottled, I have only had 3 bottles blow up, 2 of them could be traced to bottling them in 30 year old bottles, and the third one was because I stored it in a cupboard above my fridge in the height of summer, when I had left and turned the air off....but not because I bulked primed the beer in the most effective and safest manner possible.

Seriously I think you have an irrational and unfounded fear, and MY fear, is that in deciding to bottle prime you beer with dry sugar, you will bring upon you that which you seem to fear most, and that IS bottle bombs.

Best of luck in what you decide, but I really do think you are going the WRONG route.

In fact, I think they even joke about bottle bombs and individual bottle priming back in the day in this old podcast.

February 14, 2008 - Homebrew History
Charlie Papazian shares a bit of homebrew history 30 years after legislation legalizing home brewing passed Congress. Also, home brewer Robb Holmes talks about brewing when it was breaking the law.

Click to play Mp-3

 

[dogma9]

aight thanks for the advice. one more question about the one that blew up cuz of too high storage temp. what is the temp range that could cause one to blow up and how does the high temp cause that? creates pressure to fast for the bottle to handle?

 

[Revvy]

aight thanks for the advice. one more question about the one that blew up cuz of too high storage temp. what is the temp range that could cause one to blow up and how does the high temp cause that? creates pressure to fast for the bottle to handle?

It was more than likely in the 90's if not 100's above the fridge. It was 88 in the apartment.

Again, you are focussing WAAAAY to much on this....you really need to relax...this is a hobby, not brain surgery/ You are putting way too much attention on the negative and worry. Please, relax about this stuff.

 

[dogma9]

lol, thanks again. just curious cuz i keep my house warm during the summer and was wondering if it was to warm. i keep it at around 78-80 to save on electric bill

 

[Reno_eNVy]

Actually, if you look at the history of homebrewing, most bottle bombs came from priming individual bottles, because that was how it was done throughout the history of early homebrewing even up to the 1970's when it was legalized. . Because you really can't accurately measure sugar and easily get it in the bottle with those tools, and even one or two grains can be too much sugar. Plus adding dry sugar to wet beer can much more easily lead to inconsistant carbonation as some of the sugar my clump and not easily dissolve, and just sit in the bottom of the bottle, it is much better to boil it up and prime bulk. Additional there is a further risk of bottle bombs by dry priming sugar in bottles, and that is due to sanitization....especially if you grab your sugar right out of the sugar jar at home, boiling the sugar in water actually sterilizes it.

Back in the day it wasn't just one rare bottle that blew up, but entire cases, sounding like a string of firecrackers going of, BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM...you get the idea....

You sound like you are so overly afraid of bottle bombs that your logic is a little backwards.

The bottle bomb is a RARE thing these days, precisely because we bulk prime in the bucket, and don't put the dry sugar in the bottle..

The poster in the thread said basically "in all my batches this is the first time it's happened." It is really not that common. But it does happen, usually these days because of an infection/sanitization issue in a bottle (or a batch) or because of a flaw in the bottle, or becasue the bottles were actually stored in too warm a place, or they purposefully or accidently over primed the batch with too much sugar that the standard bottle can handle (like trying to put belgians in something other than a champagne bottle, NOT because the poster, or the MILLIONS of homebrewer who bulk prime via a bottling bucket as shown in Papazian, Palmer, and countless homebrewing books, bulk by that method.

And more than likely her bottle bomb will be traced to some fluke or bad math calculation as well, NOT because she bulked primed.

You don't NEED to stir the priming solution when you add it to the bucket, I NEVER DO, and I've never had a problem with inconsistent carbonation. In the hundreds if not thousands of gallons I have brewed and bottled, I have only had 3 bottles blow up, 2 of them could be traced to bottling them in 30 year old bottles, and the third one was because I stored it in a cupboard above my fridge in the height of summer, when I had left and turned the air off....but not because I bulked primed the beer in the most effective and safest manner possible.

Seriously I think you have an irrational and unfounded fear, and MY fear, is that in deciding to bottle prime you beer with dry sugar, you will bring upon you that which you seem to fear most, and that IS bottle bombs.

Best of luck in what you decide, but I really do think you are going the WRONG route.

In fact, I think they even joke about bottle bombs and individual bottle priming back in the day in this old podcast.

I think I have a man-crush on Revvy

But in all seriousness, Revvy gives sound advice; his word is essentially canon on HBT. I always bulk prime by boiling the sugar in water first as well (at least 5 minutes) to prevent infection. The only beer that was primed bottle-by-bottle was a barleywine of which I only had two gallons; didn't need to stress infection too much as it was 12%... nothing was going to live in there except Saccharomyces cerevisiae

 

[PorterIdontknowher]

You don't NEED to stir the priming solution when you add it to the bucket, I NEVER DO, and I've never had a problem with inconsistent carbonation. In the hundreds if not thousands of gallons I have brewed and bottled, I have only had 3 bottles blow up, 2 of them could be traced to bottling them in 30 year old bottles, and the third one was because I stored it in a cupboard above my fridge in the height of summer, when I had left and turned the air off....but not because I bulked primed the beer in the most effective and safest manner possible.

Ok, I don't have hundreds of gallons under my belt, but I do have tens of gallons, and I averted a bottle bomb situation or at least a most of my beer being completely flat situation. I will always stir gently to mix the sugar water after racking.

Made a brown ale... fg of about 1.010.

Boil 5 oz of sugar in a little water, put it in the bottling bucket.

Drop the siphon hose in the bucket and start the autosiphon. Beer is spinning no problem...

Fill and cap about 50 bottles... and there's about 4 oz of beer left in the bottling bucket. So, like always, I pour it into a glass, stick it into the refrigerator and clean my fermenter, bottling bucket, etc.

I finish about 10 PM and grab the glass from the fridge... one sip... THIS TASTES LIKE MALTA GOYA!!! I have enough to take a hydrometer reading... 1.052!!!

The sugar water was on the bottom of the bucket and the syphon tube was pointing up at a slight angle while resting on the bottom. I racked myself a black and tan... So any bottles from after I tilted the bucket were potential bottle bombs... and the rest would have almost no sugar and wouldn't carb much...

So I sanitized the bottling bucket again, poured all of the beer back in and rebottled everything. Still a little on the flat side, but nothing horrible.

But now I take the racking cane and gently stir a few times when I bottle. As long as you don't start whipping it up, there's no danger of oxidation.

 

[Reno_eNVy]

Boil 5 oz of sugar in a little water, put it in the bottling bucket.

How little water? Did you ensure that the sugar was 100% dissolved into a homogeneous solution? Science will show that the sugar, when racked on top of by beer ensuring that a decent whirlpool is created the sugar solution will disperse evenly throughout the entire bucket until equilibrium is reached. As the bucket fills up with beer, the liquid at the top of the column will have a higher sugar concentration than the liquid being racked below so the sugar will natural move down the concentration gradient until it reaches equilibrium.

But now I take the racking cane and gently stir a few times when I bottle. As long as you don't start whipping it up, there's no danger of oxidation.

Sorry I'm really not trying to sound rude, but do you really think that a tiny 3/8" racking cane can mix up a solution better than the force of 5 gallons of swirling delicious?

 

[PorterIdontknowher]

How little water? Did you ensure that the sugar was 100% dissolved into a homogeneous solution? Science will show that the sugar, when racked on top of by beer ensuring that a decent whirlpool is created the sugar solution will disperse evenly throughout the entire bucket until equilibrium is reached. As the bucket fills up with beer, the liquid at the top of the column will have a higher sugar concentration than the liquid being racked below so the sugar will natural move down the concentration gradient until it reaches equilibrium.

Sorry I'm really not trying to sound rude, but do you really think that a tiny 3/8" racking cane can mix up a solution better than the force of 5 gallons of swirling delicious?

5 oz of sugar dissolved in about 2 cups of water, placed on the stove, boiled for 10 minutes or so... vigorous boiling it was dissolved dude.

Me = Chemical Engineer = Understand diffusion = Also understand that it takes time and fluids behave in complicated ways and mixing fluids of dissimilar densities is not always so simple.

Layer of 1.05ish density sugar water sitting on the bottom of the bucket in a 1/4" thick layer ==> tube sitting on the bottom of the bucket, but the end of the tube was probably pointing up and slightly off the bottom. ==> The beer was being gently placed on top of the more dense sugar solution just like a black and tan.

and a 3/4" OD autosyphon mixing with a slight vertical motion could quite possibly do a better job than the mere shear forces of the rotating liquid.

 

[Reno_eNVy]

Layer of 1.05ish density sugar water sitting on the bottom of the bucket in a 1/4" thick layer ==> tube sitting on the bottom of the bucket, but the end of the tube was probably pointing up and slightly off the bottom. ==> The beer was being gently placed on top of the more dense sugar solution just like a black and tan.

"Gently" is not the word I would use to describe how you should be properly whirlpooling in the bottling bucket. It's important to avoid splashing but once the end of the tube is covered with liquid you can open the flood gates without splashing or foaming.

I just don't see how it's possible that almost 5 gallons, let's say 2 feet tall column as an estimate (don't have a bucket available), swirling rapidly would not agitate 1/4" of liquid enough to suspend it into solution. The only way it wouldn't get kicked up is if it created a diffusion boundary layer, which occur in thicknesses of around 1mm.

and a 3/4" OD autosyphon mixing with a slight vertical motion could quite possibly do a better job than the mere shear forces of the rotating liquid.

5 gallons of pure water (SG 1.000) weighs 41.8 pounds. Not sure of the OG of your beer but let's assume it's average (1.050.) 41.8 x 1.050 = 43.89 pounds. So that's almost 44 pounds of liquid spinning uniformly (or damn close to it, due to cohesive forces.) Compare that to a plastic autosiphon that, on amazon, has a shipping weight of 2 pounds and can't be swirled too fast in fear of foaming and thus oxidation. That and there is no way you'll be able to get uniform motion with a 3/4", especially being cylindrical and drag-reducing.

Seems like easy reasoning for an engineer....

EDIT: Have you ever poured a black and tan? It has to drizzle off of a spoon. Try doing it with Guinness gushing out of a 3/8"ID tube

 

[PorterIdontknowher]

"Gently" is not the word I would use to describe how you should be properly whirlpooling in the bottling bucket. It's important to avoid splashing but once the end of the tube is covered with liquid you can open the flood gates without splashing or foaming.

Ok, well how does it do anything more than gently if I don't stir? You have the little 3/8" stream flowing out into the bucket, with frictional losses. Flood gates? Its 3/8" vinyl tubing with a pressure head that tops out at about 3 feet from my counter to the stool my bottling bucket needs to rest on.

I just don't see how it's possible that almost 5 gallons, let's say 2 feet tall column as an estimate (don't have a bucket available), swirling rapidly would not agitate 1/4" of liquid enough to suspend it into solution. The only way it wouldn't get kicked up is if it created a diffusion boundary layer, which occur in thicknesses of around 1mm.

5 gallons of pure water (SG 1.000) weighs 41.8 pounds. Not sure of the OG of your beer but let's assume it's average (1.050.) 41.8 x 1.050 = 43.89 pounds. So that's almost 44 pounds of liquid spinning uniformly (or damn close to it, due to cohesive forces.) Compare that to a plastic autosiphon that, on amazon, has a shipping weight of 2 pounds and can't be swirled too fast in fear of foaming and thus oxidation. That and there is no way you'll be able to get uniform motion with a 3/4", especially being cylindrical and drag-reducing.

Seems like easy reasoning for an engineer....

EDIT: Have you ever poured a black and tan? It has to drizzle off of a spoon. Try doing it with Guinness gushing out of a 3/8"ID tube

Except

1. The weight of the beer is a red herring. The beer is less dense than the sugar solution. Besides, in your calculation you would have needed the final gravity of my beer, not the original gravity.

2. I don't want it uniformly moving. I want to move the autosyphon back and forth to create turbulent eddies at the interface between the beer and the sugar solution to cause them to mix.

3. What are the differences in FG between Harp and Guinness? Maybe .004? If that? There isn't a huge density differece. 1.010 vs. 1.050 it is easier to maintain the separation.

4. Fear of foaming and oxidation? I'm using it to stir the same way you move the fruit on the bottom up into your yogurt. You need vertical mixing, not rotating.

 

[Reno_eNVy]

Okay dude. I was about halfway done with responding to your post and giving you detailed reasoning but I know you're just going to play kindergarten and pull a, "nuh uh" again. So I'm going to short-hand it here (yes, this is the short-hand):

- There is no possible way whatsoever that a tiny stick can mix a solution better than 42 pounds (41.8 x 1.010 FG = 42.21 pounds... better?) of beer. And it's definitely not a red herring as I never veered off from the main subject: heavy, spinning beer is a far superior mixer.

- It being a red herring would imply I was trying to change the subject by telling you how much the beer would weight. But I was just emphasizing the fact that more mass give more force. You got your fallacies wrong. To quote Indigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

- Of course you're getting bad carbonation... when you swish back and forth with the stick, as you say, all you're doing is creating little eddies than may mix the sugar solution where the stick when through, but you're going to missing a LOT of liquid. That's why I said it needs to mix by spinning uniformly.... it creates a vortex in which the center gets sucked down and the bottom is expelled from the outsides. Now when I say uniformly, I mean that every height of the column is spinning, not that every particle is moving at the same velocity... jeez. There are going to be differences of velocity within the spinning column, causing turbulence. It's not like it's laminar flow and creates separated layers that don't intermix... the liquid is not nearly dense enough for that.

- Also if you're mixing it "Yoplait" style, as you say, not only are you scraping the bottom of the bucket and catalyzing infection, but if you suspend the priming liquid (that shouldn't be there if you whirlpool well enough) with the stick you still have a foot or two of beer column that the sugar won't reach. That's why you need a proper whirlpool to make sure the sugar disperses uniformly. But this is most important: your bottling bucket is not a yogurt cup, it is not filled with thick-ass yogurt but instead beer, and your liquid sugar solution is mostly definitely not yogurt fruit. It's really a horrible analogy. Not only that but you plan on creating turbulence to mix up 5 gallons with a drag-reducing cylindrical tube. It seems more plausible using something like a spoon with a nice big flat surface... but not a cylinder.

- Sure, Guinness and Harp are closer in gravity. But tell you what, put 1/4" of Harp at the bottom of your bucket, then rack a bunch of Guinness on top of it using the whirlpool action. Do you honestly think they will create layers of separation? Even if the 1/4" on the bottom was your original priming solution, as soon as the beer starts swirling around it will begin to create eddies that suspend the sugar.

- The OG of your priming solution should be 1.111... so, if the stuff at the bottom is reading 1.052 then obviously it's done some mixing. You need a more vigorous whirlpool.


You seem pretty content on disagreeing with essential everything without backing up your statements with rational reasoning.... I've really said all I care to anymore on the subject. That, and if you don't understand why the huge column of liquid is far superior at mixing, then I'd consider getting a refund on that engineering degree.

 

[PorterIdontknowher]

Where does this vortex come from? I've seen it spinning in the bucket, but I've never seen the center of the beer noticeably lower than the outer edge. I don't see much evidence of vertical flow, just rotational flow, relying on shear forces to promote mixing.

If you hold the hose so the end is pointing at the bottom or parallel and at the bottom, you are fine. When it rested so that it was just above the priming sugar, I had a problem. I have an experimental data point. I ended up with a massively sweet slug of liquid sitting on the bottom. Now I'm more careful with where the hose is pointing and I give a bit of a stir. The carbination was bad because my glass had a good chunk of the sugar in it and I wasn't going to mix that back in.

Catalyzing an infection? Where the heck does that come from??? The round nub of an autosyphon would have trouble scratching chalk, let alone the bottom of a bottling bucket.

When rivers flow into oceans, a salinity gradient persists over distance and time, despite tons of weight.

Density matters. Weight doesn't. Otherwise explain this:

My bottling bucket is 11.25" in diameter with a surface area of 99.4 square inches. That means that there is a column of air weighing 1460 pounds on top of my beer. That air is 20.9% oxygen. So I have 305 pounds of oxygen sitting on top of my beer. Why don't I have a massive oxidation problem?

You have your set opinion, and I'm not going to change it. Last question: Why do chemical reactors have baffles in them to break up a vortex that should, according to you mix the contents just fine?

If I stir my beer without foaming it up, it isn't going to ruin it. You claim it shouldn't be needed, but I'll argue its not going to hurt. As I said... I had a poorly mixed example. If the bottling valve was at the bottom of the bucket, it would also be far less of an issue.