Primary Size

[BrewDog]

I just read a cool article in this month's Zymurgy mag. A bunch of guys in a brew club got together and brewed the exact same batches of beer, but each batch had one and only one difference from the "standard" recipe. They brewed about 10 variations of a pretty mild standard brown ale recipe.

The one difference that surprised them the most was that when they used a LARGER primary, the beer tasted WORSE. The same guy brewed these batches and the only difference was the 6.5 vs 5 gallon fermenter.

Essentially, what they found is that fermenting with a blowoff got rid of a lot of bitter resins, proteins, and other crud that would normally have fallen back into the beer in a larger primary. In the smaller primary, it squeezed out the tube and out of the beer.
I guess this sort of validates the Burton Method.

As far as the rest of the article, the things that made the most difference were:
1) Hops used
2) Water used
3) Ferm. Size

Way down the list was the yeast, though they admitted that they didn't stray too far in this area. A "big" substitution was going with Irish Ale Yeast instead of British. Not much of a difference.
I'm sure they would have noticed if they used Lambic yeast /bacteria or something like that :D

Also, steeping dextrine malt did absolutely nothing for head retention. (They mentioned that it might need to be mashed.)

[fretlessman71]

You'll have to educate the rest of us on the Burton Method - sounds interesting!

[Dropzone]

Pretty good info, Brewdog! Of course, I can't imagine having a 5 gallon fermenter. Mine is 6-6.5 gallons and this last batch of porter (5.5 gallons of wort) I did I had a thick carpet of kraeusen that clogged my blow-off tube. I guess it is a good thing I popped the top and skimmed that resin off because it tastes pretty darn good. :D

I think from now on, I'll pop the top off and remove the kraeusen. Only thing I'm worried about is introducing bacteria that might be in the air. How much alcohol is needed to kill bacteria, btw? Is there a certain ABV percentage that is needed?

I'm also considering drilling a larger hole and run a larger tube to prevent kraeusen blockage in the future... has anyone done this?

[I'mRocketMan]

Dropzone-

I used a fermenter lid that had a hole large enough to need a drilled cork for an airlock. I much prefer the grommet style hole for airlocks. However, on my Belgian Tripel the lid blew off with the airlock, then I resanitized the lid and shoved a blowoff tube through the grommet and thought that would work. Two hours later my buddy called and told me the lid blew off AGAIN!! So I had him sanitize the lid with the big hole and MUCH larger ID tubing and THAT worked. I think the ID is 5/8"...

Cheers! Rocket

[BrewDog]

Fret said:
You'll have to educate the rest of us on the Burton Method - sounds interesting!

I kinda meant this as a half-joke. I remember reading about it (I am not even 100% completely sure that "Burton" the right name) a few months ago. From what I can remember, they used a trough as a recepticle for the blowoff, and let the liquid run back into the primary after the crud came off. There is no way I'd ever try anything like that, nor would I recommend it for any home brewer. Incredibly high risk of infection.

[BrewDog]

It's called the Burton Union method.

Burton Union Method (http://www.gurmania.sk/beer/berjuge.htm)

A particular style of fermentation was developed in Burton, using a cask-blowout system called the Burton Union. This system allows the fermenting wort to blow out into a trough, and then return to the wood fermenting cask. This permitted the yeast strains to evolve in a distinctive manner to give a characteristic, pleasant fruitiness. Only the Marstons Brewery still makes pale ale in this manner.

[axis714]

I'm also considering drilling a larger hole and run a larger tube to prevent kraeusen blockage in the future... has anyone done this?

1 suggestion....frozen stoppers drill alot easier than leaving them soft..Just a thought

[Minor_Deity]

This is interesting.
I had actually logged in to ask for advice about this.
I have "really" been thinking about upgrading my fermentation equipment. But I like to keep an eye on things down the road. So I was looking at fermentors that can do at least 10gal batches for my future explorations into all grain. Specifically 12.2 and 14.5 gal fermentors. Now if I end up getting one of these, will I be hurting my beer to put a 5 gal batch in it?

Per this article yes, but I have some issues with that verdict. I have fermented in 6 gal buckets and a 6.5 gal carboy. I have never had to use a blow off tube(though I have had to clean a few airlocks) so all of my kraeusen's have fallen back in. Some of my batches have been excellent. I wonder if it had to due with the style they brewed. But it begs the question, do commercial breweries skim the kraeusen? If it leaves off flavors I would think I would have read about it before now. And what in the kraeusen would be causing the problems. I mean it's all stuff already in the wort. Just the churning, bubbling and foaming actvity brings some of the material to the top. And not even that much material as a percentage compared to the 1" thick trub left at the bottom of the bucket in the end.

Anywho, looking for more input on this from anybody who has some. Brewmonkey?

Thanks,
J

[BluesHarp]

In a one stage fermentation, I could see carboy size mattering due to krausen concerns, but if the beer is transferred to a secondary carboy, I would think a lot of the worries of off flavors would be aleviated.

[Asahikun]

Originally posted by BluesHarp
In a one stage fermentation, I could see carboy size mattering due to krausen concerns, but if the beer is transferred to a secondary carboy, I would think a lot of the worries of off flavors would be aleviated.

I'm not sure I agree. Secondary would only make a difference if all the bad stuff from the krausen was falling all the way to the bottom of the beer. Otherwise it would just be transfered into your secondary.

I remember asking everyone about this ages ago and most people seemed indifferent about using a blow-off tube. It seems that maybe Papazian was right all along - a blowoff tube leads to better-tasting beer. Perhaps he was also right about ales not needing a secondary......sorry, that was another post.

[DreamWeaver]

I don't think I agree either. If you don't allow much trub into the fermenter in the first place, the blow-off tube will only lose beer or maybe avoid a clean-up cuz the fermenter is too full.

The layer of Co2 should protect the beer during primary and secondary.

And Carapils should be mashed or you're only going to get unfermentable flavor and maybe some color.

As for water & hops... we already knew that. :rolleyes:

[fuji6100]

And Carapils should be mashed or you're only going to get unfermentable flavor and maybe some color.

That actually depends on the brand! They have come out with quite a few steepable cara-pils malts in the last few years! Its just a matter of asking the manufacture or your LHBS which variety they have available.

[Asahikun]

Originally posted by DreamWeaver
I don't think I agree either.

Dreamweaver, I think we're disagreeing about different things here. You seem to be disagreeing about the effectiveness of a blow-off tube; I was disagreeing about whether secondary fermentation would make a blow-off tube unnecessary.

From my understanding, a blow-off tube gets rid of some of the by-products of fermentation (fusel oils/bitter resins according to Papazian). These will be produced regardless of how much trub gets into primary. My point was that the effectiveness of a blow-off tube is similarly unaffected by whether you use a secondary fermenter or not, since any by-products that fall into the beer when the krausen drops will just be transfered into the secondary.

Now, whether a blow-off tube is useful or not is something I'm curious about. Everytime I see the gunk around the edge of the fermenter, I imagine all the gunk that sank back into the beer when the krausen fell.

I find it somewhat paradoxical the lengths brewers go to to get their beer off the gunk at the bottom while most are happy to let the gunk being produced at the top sink straight back into their beer.

[DreamWeaver]

Originally posted by fuji6100
That actually depends on the brand! They have come out with quite a few steepable cara-pils malts in the last few years! Its just a matter of asking the manufacture or your LHBS which variety they have available.

I have read that many maltsters kiln their carapils differently. The best I saw was Munton's that expected it could be used up to 10% of the total grist and claimed 20 lovibond. They also boast "color". Most others don't call their "crystal malt" the same as carapils and claim no color. In other words don't expect much in the way of fermentables from carapils if you are steeping it and not mashing. But I have noticed more body and head retention.
----------
I basically disagreed with the whole article in that why would " a group of Homebrewers want to "steep" carapils anyways? Seems a bunch of homebrewers would be doing AG and not extract, these guys were doing extract? Well no wonder the batches came out different! So why "steep" carapils? If you were doing AG why not mash it? Maybe I'm reading too much into it but...?

As far as a blow-off tube. I don't need one because I don't allow much trub into my primary and have a very (very) small ring when I transfer. I also have my "amount of yeast" to pitch. Then I am an "early transfer to secondary" type Homebrewer and not noticed this as a problem.

There are many "absolutes" in Homebrewing but I'm not sure about this article.

[Minor_Deity]

Mostly what I find clinging to the sides after the fall is hop material. Especially in something like an IPA, where I added more hops(pellet) directly to the fermenter. So again what exactly would get pushed out the blow off that left in would harm the flavor of the beer?

I am still confused about this issue. Why would one spend all the money on a conical, and do bottom dumps of the trub, if the end result damages the beer. These are miniture and simplistic versions of full scale brewery equipment yes? So do the micro's and macro's let the kraeusen fall back in? I just don't see some one opening up the tank and scraping the crud from the top.

Believe me I am willing to go either way. I have already converted one keg to use as a primary. Almost every bit of kraeusen will be pushed out the blow off. And C02 pushes will mean the beer has no chance for contamination after it's sealed in the primary. I began to lean away from this idea, as I usually stretch my batches for 6gal so I can fill a keg and still muster up about a sixer after trub and transfer losses. So I began thinking of getting a nice fermentor that would do me well now and going forward as well.

But if a "kraeusen push" will result in cleaner beer, I'll save myself the cash and deal with my kegs getting to the kegorator a little light.

J